Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Territorial Army

Mr. Swayne: If he will make a statement on the role of the Territorial Army. [11734]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The primary role of the Territorial Army is to act as a general reserve for the Regular Army and to provide a framework for full mobilisation in times of national emergency. The TA also helps to maintain a link between the military and civilian communities throughout the country. The role of the TA is being fully considered, along with those of the other reserve forces, as part of the Government's strategic defence review.

Mr. Swayne: I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that the decision to withdraw the series III Land Rover falls disproportionately heavily on the Territorial Army. Are replacement vehicles being delayed up by

Ministers? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Territorial Army has vehicles with which to train on 2 January next year?

Dr. Reid: I noticed that this was one of the more constructive questions asked by the hon. Gentleman during an otherwise non-constructive speech in the House a few days ago. The answer to his first question is no and the answer to his second question is that everything possible will be done to make sure that the Territorial Army can meet its training obligations not only at local level but at regimental and battle group level.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that, if we are to sustain a reasonable, good and active Territorial Army, it must be led by professional people in cities and towns throughout the country? In my area, the King's Own Yorkshire Yeomanry, which used to be the King's Own Light Infantry, is a good and well-maintained territorial unit, but I fear that unless we retain full-time professional people to train, there will be a reduction in the efficiency and appropriateness of the Territorial Army.

Dr. Reid: The strategic defence review will take into account the strength that the volunteer reserve brings to the armed forces and to our regular service men and women. The immense contribution made by the Territorial Army is recognised by the Government, particularly its contribution to our operations in Bosnia in recent times. As my hon. Friend makes clear, a vital part of ensuring that we can meet such operational capability is ensuring that training is carried out professionally and with appropriate resources. That matter will be addressed during the strategic defence review.

Mr. Brazier: Is the Minister aware that no other country in the English-speaking world has less than a quarter of its total armed forces in the form of volunteer reserves? Who is carrying out the studies advising the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State on the future


of the reserve forces? Are they regular officers and civil servants, or are some serving territorials directly involved?

Dr. Reid: The strategic defence review will take into account a range of views from a range of contributors, not least the hon. Gentleman in his published material. The examination will be carried out by Ministers presiding over a range of inputs, including those that are in the Library, and those from the regular forces. We will consult reservist representatives during that process.

Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend commend the concern of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the effectiveness of the Territorial Army? Will my hon. Friend invite him to show similar concern for the effectiveness of the Regular Army by withdrawing the disgraceful remarks he made in last week's defence debate, which constituted a slur on the professionalism of men and women in our armed forces?

Dr. Reid: With great respect to my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman must defend his position. I have no intention of doing that, but I echo her remarks about the contribution that the regular forces and the Territorial Army in particular make to our defence effort, and it will not have slipped her notice that in the TA all posts are open to women.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Amess: What recent representations he has received on Britain's independent nuclear capability. [11735]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Following the announcement of the strategic defence review, we have received many written submissions concerning our nuclear deterrent. We have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of those submissions where authors have agreed that we should do so.

Mr. Amess: In the light of the sincere views that the present leader of the Labour party held when he was first elected to Parliament in 1983 in opposing all nuclear weapons, and as those views are held sincerely today by many other Labour and Liberal Members of Parliament, is the strategic defence review considering in any way the abandonment of Trident?

Mr. Robertson: No, it is not.

Mr. Llew Smith: Who are these nuclear weapons aimed at? Who is the enemy? Would my right hon. Friend be willing to press the button to involve this country in a nuclear confrontation?

Mr. Robertson: Since 1994. the nuclear weapons of this country as well as of America and Russia have been de-targeted. They are not, therefore, pointed at anyone at present. The decision whether the nuclear deterrent would or should be used would not be taken by the Secretary of State for Defence, but I remind my hon. Friend that, like

all Labour Members, he fought a general election campaign on a manifesto that said that we would retain Trident.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will it cost or save money if the Government decide, as a result of the strategic defence review, to reduce the warheads on Trident? If, as I suspect, it will cost money to take off the existing nose cones and put on new ones with fewer warheads, is that not a terrible waste of scarce defence resources?

Mr. Robertson: The strategic defence review will be based on the foreign policy priorities of the Government and indeed of this country, and we will assess what changes can be made in this country's nuclear posture that are compatible with maintaining a minimum credible deterrent.

Defence Diversification Agency

Mr. Rapson: When he plans to publish his plans for a defence diversification agency. [11736]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We hope to publish a Green Paper on defence diversification before Christmas.

Mr. Rapson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, traditionally. Great Britain has been a world leader in the development of new technology in the defence sector, that we are much less successful when it comes to exploiting those industries commercially, and that there is a need to facilitate a transfer of technology from the defence sector to the defence industry? When the new defence diversification agency is eventually set up, will both those factors be taken into account?

Mr. Spellar: We recognise the increasing interchange of technology between the civil and defence sectors. That is also recognised by industry. We hope that, through the defence diversification agency, we can ensure that technology is disseminated far more widely into the civil sector so that we can continue to build, indeed rebuild, Britain's industrial base.

Mr. Viggers: Is it not true that the record of defence contractors—of which Vosper Thornycroft and Basys Technology are two very good examples from the constituencies of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) and me—clearly shows that they have been extremely successful in using the skills that have developed in the defence area and deploying them for civilian use? Does the Minister agree that the last thing those skilled managements need are so-called experts offering to help them?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has introduced an aunt Sally that would not be recognised by industry. In fact, there is considerable interest from the defence industry in dissemination—not so much among the prime contractors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as among many of the small and medium enterprises that are looking forward to using the technology. There is also considerable interest in faster dissemination to industry of the very good technical and scientific work in our


Government laboratories. The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to find how much genuine interest there is within industry.

Bosnia (Implementation Force)

Mr. Winnick: If he will make a statement on the future of IFOR in Bosnia. [11737]

Mr. George Robertson: The NATO-led stabilisation force, SFOR, will remain in Bosnia until the completion of its mission in June 1998.

Mr. Winnick: First, I pay tribute to the way in which the IFOR contingent, including British Army personnel, has carried out its duties. In certain circumstances, will the mandate be extended, bearing in mind the situation that existed up to the time IFOR went into the former Yugoslavia? Since my right hon. Friend's last statement to the House, has he had any further information about the two notorious criminals and mass murderers who remain free?

Mr. Robertson: It is too early to talk of post-SFOR options, but our view remains that any follow-on force can only be NATO-led, with the risks and burdens shared equally by all allies.
I was in Bosnia last week, and having seen the superb job being done by our armed forces with the other 33 countries involved in the alliance, I doubt whether anybody in this country would want Bosnia ever again to degenerate into the genocide and ethnic cleansing that existed before intervention.
On my hon. Friend's second point, the United Kingdom, with the rest of the international community, remains determined to ensure that all indictees indicted on war crimes are sent to The Hague for trial. What happened at Prijedor in July this year is proof of our national resolve. The responsibility for handing over indicted persons to the tribunal lies with the Bosnian authorities. We therefore very much welcome the recent decision of 10 Croat indictees to hand themselves over for trial at The Hague.

Mr. Martin Bell: Will the Secretary of State assure us that he is studying what the possible consequences might be of a withdrawal if it is decided not to renew SFOR in June next year?

Mr. Robertson: I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that that matter is being looked at on an almost daily basis. We take it extremely seriously. What matters now is what progress is being made in Bosnia. During my visit it became obvious that substantial progress was being made in creating some new democratic institutions in that country. The existence of a renewed debate, especially in Republika Srpska, between the two elements is encouraging. There is also a growing realisation by people throughout the country that there is no military solution to the problems in Bosnia and that foreign forces cannot remain there indefinitely.
I repeat that I do not believe that the people of this country or of the wider international community want Bosnia to degenerate yet again into the sort of ethnic brutality that characterised the period after the fall of the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Key: Most people agree that our excellent Bosnia operation is very good value for money, the cost being

more than £200 million. In future, however, where will the burden of that cost fall? It is currently met by the contingency reserve, but will it in future fall fully on the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Robertson: It is too early in the financial year to establish the precise cost of the Bosnia operation to the defence budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is exactly the same answer as was given by my predecessor in the previous Conservative Government. As and when we know the precise cost to the UK of the Bosnia operation we will determine how much of that cost can be absorbed by the Ministry of Defence; anything over that sum will have to be the subject of discussions between my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and me. I have no intention of starting that discussion at the Dispatch Box.

Madam Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

Mr. Mackinlay: He has dealt with the point, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: How splendid; in that case, I call the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).

NATO Enlargement

Mr. Tyrie: If he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [11738]

Mr. George Robertson: The Madrid NATO summit invited the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to begin accession talks with NATO. NATO's goal is to sign the accession protocol in December. At the same time, NATO is working with the three countries concerned to facilitate their effective military and political integration into the alliance.

Mr. Tyrie: What will the cost of NATO enlargement be? I note that, after the NATO summit, the Prime Minister said that the cost would be zero. There have been reports in the press, however, that the Pentagon and the NATO military command estimate that the cost will be between £3 billion and £6 billion. What will be the United Kingdom's share of that cost?

Mr. Robertson: Those are not NATO figures. A variety of sources have produced a number of figures, few of which we consider reliable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not say that the cost would be zero; he said that it would be manageable. The cost of NATO enlargement will emerge from the detailed plans that are being produced, based on the decisions made at Madrid. It would be misleading to present figures at this stage. A good indication of where the costs are likely to fall should be ready for NATO Ministers when they meet in December.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State say what assessment his Department has made of the costs of NATO enlargement to the new member states in raised taxation or cuts in their social programmes, and what


estimate he has made of the likely defence expenditure increase in Russia—which feels that it has a new enemy on its borders and is therefore likely to rearm?

Mr. Robertson: Immediately after today's Question Time, I am going to Russia to meet my opposite number, General Sergeyev. The Russians' opinion is not that they have a new enemy on their borders and the NATO-Russia founding charter was a new chapter in the developing relationships between NATO and Russia. We do not believe that the new applicant countries will have to pay a price that will have to come out of their social expenditure.
We will not allow expansion to bankrupt the expanding economies of the applicant countries, because their continued economic health and market economies are an important element in European security. We expect that there will be costs to them—of course there will be—and that they will have responsibilities, but we and the applicant countries believe that every penny that has been spent on NATO has been worth it and that any necessary future expenditure will be in their and Europe's interest.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State advise the House how critical the issue of the NATO nuclear capability has been in those discussions?

Mr. Robertson: Given that there is absolutely no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of the new members, it can be taken that that was not a major factor in the discussions on NATO enlargement.

Strategic Exports

Mr. Ian Taylor: When he will publish the first annual report on UK strategic exports. [11739]

Mr. Spellar: The content and timing of the publication of the first annual report on the state of strategic export controls and their application is currently under discussion between the Departments concerned. An announcement will be made in due course.
May I, Madam Speaker, take this opportunity to withdraw unreservedly remarks I made about the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) during the defence policy debate last week when responding to his point about delays in the issuing of defence export licences? I very much regret that I was misinformed about representations my Department had received on this matter. I have, of course, already written to the hon. Gentleman to apologise, but I wanted to take the earliest opportunity to correct my inadvertent error on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Taylor: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I thank the Minister for his personal statement and clarification, which the House will welcome. We are grateful to him. Nevertheless, will he clarify for the benefit of the Defence Manufacturers Association why there is such a delay in the granting of export licences? Export orders are massively important for British business and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm just how important the defence industry is to British export performance.

Mr. Spellar: The defence industry is a substantial exporter, which is why we stressed its importance so

much in our election manifesto and why we are holding regular meetings with defence manufacturers. Some of the delays have inevitably arisen because of the Government's review of the criteria to be considered when issuing licences for the export of conventional arms. My Department has provided staff to other Departments involved in the licensing process to assist in clearing the backlog. Our aim is to ensure that the system is sufficiently flexible to deal with urgent cases. Officials are well aware that undue delay in the clearance of licence applications could result in lost orders or, equally important, in damage to our reputation as a reliable supplier.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that previous Governments did not invest sufficiently in research and development to enhance strategic exports? What plans have our Government to invest in this vital sphere?

Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is well aware from previous answers that we are examining the interchange between the civil and defence sectors in defence manufacturing and the interchange of research that that involves. We are also considering much wider dissemination of the work undertaken by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. We understand that much of the benefit that we are now deriving stems from previous research and we appreciate the need for future research to sustain our industry.

Sir George Young: The House will have heard and welcomed the Minister's apology for his unwarranted attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—no doubt that particular weapons system will not be deployed again from the Government Front Bench. In view of the implications for jobs and, indeed, for foreign exchange, is the Minister able to give the House a date by which the Government will have reached the previous Government's target for processing export licences?

Mr. Spellar: As I told the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), we are working with other Departments and taking up the matter with them urgently to ensure that there are no undue delays—we are seized of the potential difficulties, which I outlined, if we are not able to improve matters. We certainly take the issue seriously and are taking action on it.

RAF Procurement

Mr. Borrow: If he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's strategic defence review in respect of policy on RAF procurement. [11740]

Mr. Spellar: One of the aims of the strategic defence review is to ensure that the armed forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks asked of them. The review will consider what procurement policies are necessary to obtain the best possible output from defence resources for all three services. We will be seeking to establish a mutually beneficial partnership with the defence industry to achieve this end.

Mr. Borrow: I thank the Government for their continued support for the Eurofighter project and its


exclusion from the defence review. Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence sought in the House last Monday to undermine the previous Government's commitment to the project by arguing that it should be included in the defence review? Does the Minister agree that the voters of Lancashire were prudent on 1 May to vote for Labour candidates committed to the project rather than for Conservative candidates whose commitment now seems somewhat shaky?

Mr. Spellar: I presume that my hon. Friend was referring to the following words of the shadow Secretary of State last Monday:
The second flaw is mentioned again in today's edition of The Guardian. Excluding defence equipment from the review poses a risk that the equipment will dictate defence policy, rather than the choice of equipment being dictated by policy."—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 623.]
That article in The Guardian dealt almost exclusively with Eurofighter. Only two items are excluded from the review. One is Trident, which I presume the right hon. Gentleman was not referring to. The other is Eurofighter, which is enormously important for the future of our armed forces and the RAF and is at a delicate stage of discussion in Germany. Members of the Defence Committee have been in Germany pressing the case for Eurofighter. We welcome their success and believe that all hon. Members should be four square behind Eurofighter, which is important for the Air Force and for the defence industry.

Mr. Evans: Unlike the Labour party, we have not changed our policies just because we have moved to the other side of the House. Our support for the European fighter aircraft is 100 per cent. We want an assurance from the Minister that the RAF will be able to do the tasks that we ask of it after the strategic defence review. Those who think that we can ask industries such as British Aerospace to diversify their Hawks into hoovers, their Tornados into teapots or their EFAs into fridges must realise that that cannot happen. We need to keep our skilled personnel together in factories such as those of British Aerospace.
Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that our domestic market co-operates with the defence manufacturing industries in Europe and the United States? Does he also agree that that is possible only if the Government ensure strong domestic demand?

Mr. Spellar: The Conservatives may not have changed their policy, but they have changed their entire defence team. The hon. Gentleman's silly comments about diversification are countered by the experience of British Aerospace, which has done a great deal of work on establishing industrial parks near its sites to build up its supplier base, which includes many dual-use suppliers. That, not the strange picture painted by the hon. Gentleman, is the reality of diversification.
In opposition and in government we have consistently reaffirmed our support for Eurofighter—not just in words, but in actions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to Germany to urge support for Eurofighter and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the issue with the German Chancellor. Much of the movement on the issue in Germany is down to this Government's resolution.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Mr. Keith Simpson: If he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to Her Majesty's Government's comprehensive spending review. [11741]

Mr. George Robertson: The strategic defence review is my Department's contribution to the comprehensive spending review. There will therefore be one coherent review of defence.

Mr. Simpson: Given that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the aim of the comprehensive spending review is to identify savings in all Departments, will the Secretary of State tell the House the extent of the savings that defence will make over the next few years—3 per cent? Five per cent? What is his base line for cuts below which he will resign?

Mr. Robertson: In the great history of brass necks in politics, I suppose that the hon. Gentleman does not shine out, but savings in this year's defence budget will have to be made to fill the holes in capability that his hon. Friends left. In addition to that, we inherited a 3 per cent. efficiency savings target from the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman was a special adviser to the previous Administration, so he knows a little about random, ad hoc, arbitrary cutting of defence budgets. Perhaps he should apologise to the House rather than boast.

Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives are in no position to lecture him on defence cuts, when defence expenditure was cut by one third in the past 10 years?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. They have no justification for lecturing us. Whereas we made specific promises, which we shall keep, they made promises about defence strength that contrast with their record of cutting defence expenditure by one third in real terms in the past decade.

Mr. Soames: Does the Secretary of State agree that the good and ambitious programme of jointery, which was started by his predecessor, is well worth continuing? Does he accept that substantial savings can be achieved by jointery, and by undertaking further joint operations and much greater joint support work? I am sure that he will be supported in those efforts by the Opposition.
What we cannot and will not support, however, are cuts where mergers are made just for the sake of mergers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the integrity of the single-service structure, even within the framework of enhanced jointery, remains at the core of defence policy?

Mr. Robertson: I can easily give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall keep the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the British Army. Like the previous Government, we shall want to look closely at how the three services co-operate, the better to improve the operations and procurement side of our defence. That makes absolute common sense and it is one of the key areas that we are looking at in the strategic defence review.


The word "jointery" is a jargon expression which is virtually meaningless to the outside world. The ability of the three services, with a long and proud history, to work more closely together in an increasingly complicated and changing world is, however, something that most people would regard as common sense. I am glad to keep any tradition that makes common sense for the defence of this country.

Sir George Young: For the record, our support for Eurofighter is total and unqualified.
In the strategic defence review, the Secretary of State has laid particular emphasis on two considerations: first, the search for consensus and, secondly, openness. Will he now admit that his search for those two goals has been fatally undermined by his failure to publish the foreign policy baselines?

Mr. Robertson: We are all glad that the shadow Defence Secretary has belatedly given his full-hearted support for Eurofighter. It did not sound as if that was the case last week. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has difficulty in coming to the support of anything that starts with the word "Euro" at this time. We all wish him well in bigger fights than those across the Dispatch Box—fights to see whether he will be sitting on the Front Bench at the next Defence Question Time and whether he will be there on his own terms.
I made it clear to the House last week that the Government would outline the foreign policy guidelines that would predicate our discussions of phase 2 of the strategic defence review through a series of speeches that I would make. I made a major speech at the English Speaking Union and a major speech, which I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to read, at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. That outlined clearly the Government's foreign policy priorities, from which we shall design the rest of the defence review.

Eurofighter

Mr. Olner: If he will make a statement on the future of the Eurofighter programme. [11742]

Mr. George Robertson: The Government remain strongly committed to the Eurofighter programme. The development phase is proceeding very satisfactorily. We are ready to sign the memoranda of understanding for the production and support phases and I hope that as a result of the positive decision by the German Cabinet on 8 October final German approval will be secured in the Bundestag later this month to proceed to the next phases. The aim of the four partner nations is to sign the memoranda of understanding for these phases in December 1997 and the relevant contracts very soon thereafter.

Mr. Olner: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for that reply, but for his earlier replies which show the Government's support for Eurofighter. That contrasts strongly with the views of the previous Government, who fought a general election campaign on the basis that, if the Labour party formed a Government, it would scrap this wonderful aeroplane. That was not true and what the Secretary of State has said has proved that.
Will my right hon. Friend give a further assurance that he will not listen to the siren voices on the Opposition Benches or to the shadow Secretary of State? Will he give my constituents at the Rolls-Royce aero-engine plant in Coventry the assurance that they and others working on Eurofighter will have the Government's full support?

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend and put on record my gratitude for his robust support for a project that is important not just in defence terms, but in terms of the degree of European co-operation that we can find in respect of the most effective combat aircraft to meet the needs of the RAF and other European air forces. As a multi-role weapons system, it offers the operational flexibility necessary to meet the uncertain challenges of the next century. That is why the previous Government backed it and the present Government will continue to support it. I hope that all hon. Members will realise its value.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as Eurofighter is exempt from the strategic defence review, which is the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the Government's fundamental expenditure review, should there be any cost overruns on that £14 billion project—the most expensive procurement project ever undertaken—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Soames—that is not our custom. They may be pretty girls, but we do not hold conversations with officials in the box. You may talk to me. Mr. Soames.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as Eurofighter is exempt from the review, which is the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the Government's fundamental expenditure review, any overrun on that £14 billion project—the most expensive procurement project every undertaken by the Ministry of Defence—will not be allowed to skew the rest of the defence programme, but will be charged to the reserve?

Mr. Robertson: I do not know why you are so intolerant, Madam Speaker. I thought that bonding was the only thing that united the Conservative party at present.
Unlike the previous Government, we intend to keep a tight grip on all procurement projects. The House may be interested to learn that the hon. Gentleman was a special adviser in the Ministry of Defence under the previous Administration, so if anyone knows about cost overruns and in-service dates that have yet to appear, he should be the expert.

Armistice Day

Mr. St. Aubyn: What are his plans for commemorating armistice day. [11743]

Dr. Reid: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence will attend the Cenotaph ceremony on Remembrance Sunday, as will I and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. This is the formal national occasion for remembering all those, whether in a military or a civilian capacity, who made the supreme sacrifice.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister join Conservative Members in supporting the British Legion and its proposal


that a two-minutes silence should be observed on Tuesday 11 November? If so, how does the Minister propose to build on the success of the previous Government a year ago in promoting that idea?

Dr. Reid: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to ensuring that Remembrance Sunday and the two-minute silence on that day are not forgotten, but observed with full dignity, respect and honour. He will realise, of course, that the observance of a period of silence either on Remembrance Sunday or on 11 November must be a personal decision. Indeed, one of the freedoms for which those who fell fought was the right of individuals to make that decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers, including myself, and their officials will be observing that silence on both those dates.

Mr. Grocott: Amid the many and varied ways in which different communities commemorate Armistice Day, may I tell my hon. Friend about a very moving ceremony which takes place every year in my constituency and, no doubt, elsewhere? It is called the Ceremony of Light, when 100 names of people who have given their lives in wars this century are read out and for each name a candle is lit, usually by a young person in the constituency. Although I attend the ceremony every year, each year is deeply moving—not least because it involves people of all generations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that all generations—especially young people as they grow older—understand the awesome sacrifices that were made and the reasons why they were made to defend our freedoms?

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am sure that the House will have found his description as important and moving as I did. It is absolutely essential that young people not only formally remember but recognise those who fell for this country—first because many of those who fell gave up their youth for succeeding generations, and secondly because, unless the torch of freedom and the sacrifices made are passed from generation to generation, we shall not retain the will power to stand up for democracy and freedom. That is what the people who died in the second world war died for. All of us and any future generation will forget that to the peril of the very democracies and freedoms for which previous generations fell.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister, like most hon. Members present, is wearing a poppy. Will he comment on the behaviour of the management of Coates Viyella Ltd. in Londonderry, which has sent home and suspended more than a dozen workers for wearing poppies and has even compelled visiting executives from England to remove poppies while on the plant? Does the Minister agree that a perverted interpretation of legislation is being used to support that outrageous action, and that the legislation should be clarified so that no person will be penalised in future for wearing a poppy?

Dr. Reid: I recognise the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman brings to the matter not only because of Remembrance Sunday, which is coming up, but because yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the terrible massacre in Enniskillen, which was a dastardly act by any

standards. I had the privilege of attending a ceremony held by representatives of the Enniskillen British Legion yesterday and presented them with a wreath from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take back to Enniskillen.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will understand that, due to the nature of discussions that we are having on Remembrance Sunday and exchanges across the Dispatch Box, I do not want to address that particular instance on this occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I am sure that we could meet on this subject and I could give him satisfaction.

Gulf War Illness

Mr. Todd: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy relating to Gulf war illnesses. [11744]

Dr. Reid: The Government are committed to dealing openly, honestly and sympathetically with the concerns of Gulf veterans who are ill. We shall continue to give the issue the highest priority.

Mr. Todd: I thank the Minister for that answer on behalf of constituents of mine who have raised the issue. Are we taking steps to gain access to American research on the subject?

Dr. Reid: I assure my hon. Friend that we are keeping in close touch with our American colleagues. In fact, I was in Washington a fortnight ago having a meeting with the joint inter-agencies which are handling the issue. We are also extending to the Americans any information that we receive—from fact finding and reports that have recently been published and from any future research discoveries that we might make. The American assistance is particularly useful with regard to chemical weapons. As in all other spheres of information, I should make it plain that we will release that information—as well as all other information—for the benefit of veterans.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Minister has just acknowledged, exposure to chemical weapons from the regime of Saddam Hussein is a possible cause of Gulf war syndrome. Is it not therefore all the more chilling to learn that Saddam Hussein is persisting in the development of weapons of mass destruction, especially the nerve agent VX4, and is declining to allow United Nations inspectors access, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, to inspect the plants where the development is taking place? Can the Minister confirm that the Government stand four square behind the United Nations Security Council resolutions which authorise—if all else fails—the use of proportionate force?

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman and take this opportunity to make it plain that Saddam' s actions in relation to the United Nations Special Commission are completely unacceptable and he must now comply with the United Nations Security Council presidential statement of 29 October. We shall give our full support to the Secretary-General in his efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the problem and we are in close contact with our allies on that issue. Since the hon. and


learned Gentleman asks the question, I confirm that we do not advocate the use of force, but we do not rule it out if Saddam fails to comply.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister told the House during last week's two-day defence debate that, despite the best endeavours of his Department, he still has not been able to find out precisely what mixture of chemicals was given to how many soldiers serving in the Gulf. What further investigations has he made since then? In particular, what batches of chemicals were purchased from which chemical manufacturers, and on what day were they given to which units? Surely it is possible to arrive at a realistic conclusion.

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I say, with all due respect, that I have done more in six months on that matter than was done in the previous six years. I issued a detailed paper on organophosphates five days ago, and a detailed paper on the vaccines used has also been issued, warts and all, including information about decisions that hon. Members may find questionable. I have also doubled the resources allotted to the research side, put more people through the medical assessment in the past six months than were assessed in the previous four years, and established a fact-finding group to ascertain the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises.
I pledge again that the Government are committed, out of a duty of honour, to making all the information available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to those who served their country in the Gulf. If I cannot make up for all the mistakes of the previous six years in my first six months, I shall do my damnedest to do so in my first year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

National Audit Office

Mr. Ian Bruce: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the funds available for the National Audit Office. [11769]

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office corporate plan for 1998-99 to 2002-03 showed an increase in net cash resources from £39.8 million to £41.5 million in real terms over the next five years. There will be considerable increases in work load in this period as a result of the introduction of resource accounting, greater examination of regularity and propriety issues and involvement in accounting and tendering procedures in public-private partnerships. The cost of the extra work will be partly offset by continuing efficiency savings.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the right hon. Gentleman—I hope that he is indeed a right hon. Gentleman because he certainly should be by now—for that answer. Does he agree that the National Audit Office gives good value for money and that its reports often lead to further savings?

However, will the Public Accounts Commission consider whether we should put more funds into checking what is happening in local government? District auditors are supposed to ensure that the correct procedures are followed, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they sometimes get too close to local authorities and that many problems seem to be missed? Is it not time that we got to the bottom of what is happening in local government?

Mr. Sheldon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the value for money that is obtained by the National Audit Office. It is one of the great ventures of the House, and since its introduction in 1983, it has succeeded in meeting all the aims of the National Audit Act 1983.
Local government is a matter for the Audit Commission. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, I have co-operated with the commission, but local government is entirely a matter for it, as are any proposals that it may make to the National Audit Office or to the PAC.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the excellent statement on public-private finance in the annual report of the NAO is drawn to the attention of all hon. Members so that they do not forget that the taxpayer has a vested interest when looking at all alternatives to the use of taxpayers' money to find out whether better value might be provided by remaining within the state system?

Mr. Sheldon: The private finance initiative report by the NAO is very important and will be considered by the PAC in due course. We await that examination.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners was asked—

Millennium

Sir Sydney Chapman: What plans the Church Commissioners have to mark the millennium. [11770]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The Church Commissioners are conscious that the millennium is both an inclusive national celebration and a significant Christian anniversary, and the Church is seeking to ensure that the religious and spiritual nature of the year can be appropriately reflected within the context of the new millennium experience.
The Church is planning to give special millennium candles to every household and to encourage people to take them with them wherever they go on millennium eve—just as individuals took candles to Wembley stadium in honour of Diana, Princess of Wales, following her tragic death. There could then be a major moment of national reflection in silence as people stand together and light their candles, one from another. This is intended as the churches' gift to their local communities and something that everyone can take part in if they wish.

Sir Sydney Chapman: While welcoming that statement, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that


the churches lobby so that they are at the very centre of the millennium experience—not least because the very name "millennium" is based upon the perceived birth of Christ? Will he use his unique position—linking, as he does, his fellow commissioners with Government Ministers—to help to ensure that we celebrate the millennium by ensuring that our glorious ecclesiastical architectural heritage is maintained into the next millennium? I am referring to cathedrals, churches and chapels of all faiths throughout the United Kingdom. An example of this work, incidentally, is the initiative successfully announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the previous Heritage Secretary.

Mr. Bell: I am glad to see the right hon. Lady in her place and I am happy to endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I should add that every church bell in the land will be rung at noon on Saturday 1 January 2000 for five minutes, followed by 10 minutes of prayer which will be open to all. In relation to the architecture to which he referred, these buildings are a testament to the Church, and as commissioners we shall work with Ministers to ensure that that remains the case.

Mr. Skinner: Has my hon. Friend thought through the proposition that everyone could carry a candle? Is he aware that, if the so-called hundreds of thousands turn up at the dome with lighted candles, they might set fire to it?

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend and I share a common heritage—we both come from mining families and our fathers went to work with candles. The dome is in the hands of the Minister without Portfolio, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—capable hands, but not those of the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the commissioners to throw their weight about with regard to what the state and the Church will do at the time of the millennium? First, will he make sure that we do not spend unnecessary money on a temporary construction at Greenwich when we could invest in more beneficial activities for the longer term—perhaps for people at the bottom of the social scale?
Secondly, will he try to persuade the state to encourage the international community to write off international debt—a real jubilee for poorer countries, who would be liberated for the next millennium? Finally, is he aware

that—as at Canterbury cathedral and, increasingly, Westminster abbey—the great churches of the land are either closed or too expensive to get in?

Mr. Bell: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. The Church Commissioners are in touch with the Minister without Portfolio about the dome. We are seeking to have a chapel in the dome to celebrate the millennium with an appropriate exhibition. With the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, we are also seeking to ensure that while it is a Christian anniversary it is also shared on a multi-faith basis so that there is a proper spread throughout our land of celebrations on the millennium. The other points are for other Ministers and I will ensure that they reach them.

Clergy Pensions

Mr. Pike: What representations he has received regarding changes in funding for clergy pensions. [11771]

Mr. Stuart Bell: The commissioners have been engaged in extensive correspondence with the parishes protection group on a wide range of issues relating to its work—in particular, the proposals for the future financing of clergy pensions. The group has made a number of assertions that the commissioners do not accept, and they have made their position clear to the group. I have invited my hon. Friend to see me about those matters and I look forward to his taking me up on that offer.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he satisfied that the pensions scheme as it is structured is actuarially sound for present and future members and that the parishes are not being asked to bear an onerous burden that they cannot meet?

Mr. Bell: The commissioners' actuaries have confirmed that sufficient funds are available to meet the past service liability for pensions. Future service is a matter for the pensions board and its actuaries, but dioceses are aware of the extent of their liability and are confident that the necessary funds can be raised.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would it not be beneficial for the fund and ease the burdens on it if clergy could be encouraged to continue serving as parish priests or in other capacities beyond the normal retirement age? In many spheres of activity, clergymen even in their early 70s could perform useful functions, perhaps on more modest stipends. As few people are coming into the ministry, is that not the sort of thing that the Church Commissioners should support?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which I should like to pass on to others.

Breast Cancer Screening

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on cancer screening.
In June this year, it was revealed that 12 women in Devon who had not been referred for treatment after being screened for breast cancer had subsequently developed cancer, and two of them had died.
On 9 June, in response to a private notice question from the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who is not here because he is in hospital, I reported what I had then been able to find out about this awful situation. I announced that I had asked the chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, to establish the facts about the breast cancer service in Exeter and to review the breast cancer screening programme nationwide in the light of what was revealed in Exeter.
The chief medical officer was assisted by a small team of people with specialised knowledge of various aspects of breast cancer. Their initial inquiries revealed wide-ranging shortcomings in Exeter and in regional and national aspects of the breast cancer screening programme. With my agreement, Sir Kenneth Calman asked the retiring chief medical officer for Wales, Dame Deirdre Hine, to lead a small team to review the national and regional arrangements for delivering quality assurance for breast screening.
Professor A. R. M. Wilson, the director of the national breast screening training centre in Nottingham, was asked to conduct an independent expert audit of 1,920 mammograms of all women who had been called back for further investigation after screening in Exeter and of all women who had developed cancers in the period between screenings in the past two years.
Completion of the chief medical officer's report was held up by the need to complete the audit of mammograms and, most recently, by a legal challenge from one of the doctors concerned. The report was completed last Friday afternoon. I am publishing it today.
The report covers three aspects: the independent assessment of the technical competence of breast screening in Exeter, based on the audit of mammograms; the examination of the organisational, managerial and quality control arrangements in the Exeter breast cancer unit; the review of national and regional arrangements for quality assurance of the breast cancer screening service. The report concludes that there were serious faults in all three.
The audit of mammograms concluded that there was evidence of failure on the part of the two radiologists involved to provide care to the standard expected of consultants involved in mammographic screening. That had not been picked up or tackled by the management of the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS trust over a number of years. It had been aware of questions of professional behaviour and other concerns about the operation of the breast unit, but no action had been taken. Management structures were confused. Lines of accountability were unclear. There was concern among staff and a lack of multi-disciplinary working. Some patients had complained about the attitude shown to them. Staff felt that their views had been ignored by management. They were right.
Responsibility for making sure that all breast screening units operated to a high national standard and that any shortcomings were spotted and dealt with promptly and effectively used to rest with national health service regions, but when regional health authorities were abolished, responsibilities for quality assurance for breast cancer screening were split. In the south-west, the Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly health authority took on the role of lead purchaser for breast screening quality assurance. The changes left the regional staff with some quality assurance duties, but neither the resources nor the authority to do the job. That situation applies throughout the country. Lead purchasing has failed the breast cancer screening service. The quality assurance system does not work.
As a result of all this, disciplinary proceedings have been instituted by the Royal Devon and Exeter trust against Dr. Brennan, the doctor in charge of the breast unit, who has been suspended. The other radiologist, Dr. Graham Urquhart, is employed by the South Devon trust, which has commissioned an audit of all his radiological work. Neither doctor is now involved in breast imaging.
Of the 1,920 women whose mammograms were reviewed in the audit, 229 were judged to need further assessment. All the women affected have been contacted, and the last one is due to be seen by clinicians on 10 November.
I know that all women in the Exeter area will be worried about whether they can rely on their screening result. The professional advice that I have received is that no other women in the area need be recalled or rescreened. The main problem was not in spotting possible cancers but in dealing with them appropriately, once identified. I am advised that all the women who needed to be recalled have been recalled. All women should, of course, continue to attend for routine screening appointments.
The report contains many detailed recommendations that will need to be carefully considered. I can announce today, however, the following action that is already being taken to implement the main recommendations: the Royal Devon and Exeter trust is taking action to make sure that the breast unit is properly managed in future and that arrangements are in place for staff to be able to report when things are going wrong; I am placing an explicit requirement on health authorities and trusts to commission and deliver breast cancer screening to national standards; all NHS trusts with breast cancer screening units are being told to review their arrangements to make sure that they deliver a high-quality service, and they must report the outcome of their reviews by the end of January 1998; all health authorities, trusts and regional offices will be expected to agree action plans by the end of February 1998 to ensure that all screening programmes meet national standards.
By 1 April 1998, responsibility and resources for breast screening quality assurance will be removed from lead purchasers and restored to NHS regional officers, who will be given all the necessary authority to secure quality assurance. In the last resort, they will be able to close down screening units that fail to meet national standards.
The shortcomings that the inquiry has revealed and the recommendations that it makes very much parallel the recent report and recommendations made by Sir William


Wells following his inquiry into the failures of the cervical cancer screening service provided by the Kent and Canterbury NHS trust. He singled out the failure of lead purchasing, the ineffectiveness of local management, the failure of arrangements for staff to report what was going on, and the absence of effective quality assurance.
Many of the problems at Exeter and Canterbury sprang from the shortcomings of the internal market, which included the absence of arrangements to secure high and uniform standards, even for cancer screening systems that were supposed to be national; legal obstacles to intervening in the affairs of trusts that are falling down on the job; staff not being able to speak their minds. All that must be changed, and the new Government will make the necessary changes. Our forthcoming White Paper on the future of the national health service will spell out proposals to improve the quality of treatment and care by setting high standards and putting in place machinery to ensure that the agreed standards are met. We have already announced the end of gagging clauses in staff contracts.
Cancer screening has two purposes: to identify patients who need treatment and to reassure patients who do not. The breast cancer screening service in Exeter and the cervical cancer screening service in Canterbury failed on both counts. They failed to ensure prompt treatment for women with cancer. For other women with cancer they gave false reassurance. They left thousands of other women not knowing one way or the other. They were a disgrace.
The failure to have in place a system that could identify promptly things that were going wrong and then put them right was also a disgrace. The final disgrace would be if those deplorable failures were to undermine the faith of women in this country in the value of cancer screening. Therefore, I urge all women to continue to attend for screening for both breast and cervical cancer, because, despite what has gone wrong, screening remains the best way of identifying breast and cervical cancers and pre-cancers in time to make possible early and, therefore, more effective treatment.
Finally, I offer my deepest sympathy to all the women who have suffered as a result of these failures and to their families. We owe it to them all to put things right, and we will.

Mr. John Maples: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I know that this is a subject in which he has taken a very serious interest for a long time. In particular, he has campaigned for better cervical smear testing and breast cancer screening. I join him in expressing my sympathy for the women concerned. This is a simply dreadful disease, and the uncertainty must have been really terrible.
The breast cancer arrangements in Exeter and East Devon failed to ensure proper treatment for breast cancer, and they gave false reassurance. I very much hope—I join the Secretary of State in this—that the inquiry will finally put matters right. I remind the House that it was the last Conservative Government—the first EU country and one of the first in the world—who introduced a nationwide breast screening programme based on computerised call and recall and who introduced the Calman-Hine recommendations, which were praised by the Macmillan Fund cancer relief briefing, which said that the Government had an excellent record on them.
This matter was first raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) in a private notice question in June, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in an Adjournment debate in the same month. They are not here today, unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend is in hospital and my hon. Friend, I am afraid, is stuck in a traffic jam.
The Secretary of State sought in part to blame what happened on the internal market, but was it not a failure of two individual consultants? The report blames them quite clearly. If the Secretary of State is saying that there is a far more widespread failure across the country, perhaps he will tell us. Is everything being done for the approximately 1,900 women who are directly affected?
The right hon. Gentleman told us about the women who have been recalled, but have those who have not been recalled been given a reassurance that they do not need to be? He told us what is being done at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, but are there wider lessons that he feels have been learnt across the country which are not just the failure of individual consultants? Does he have reason to believe that similar errors are being made elsewhere? In particular, can he confirm that absolutely nothing that has arisen out of the inquiry is being withheld or not being published?
Should there be a revised national protocol on screening to promote best practice? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the existing protocol contained in the NHS executive letter of 23 January 1995 is working satisfactorily? That executive letter expires on 28 January next year. Do the results of the inquiry require any change to those protocols? Referrals in the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital seemed to be solely to radiologists. Even doubtful cases were not referred to surgeons for a second opinion. Is that right, or should such practices change?
I apologise to the Secretary of State if those questions are answered in the report, but I received a copy of his statement only at a quarter past 3, and, although I managed to read that, I did not manage to read the whole report.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the commitments on cancer treatment made by his party before the election still stand, and will he tell us the time scale for their implementation? I shall remind him what they were. In April this year, the Minister for Public Health said:
The waiting time to see a specialist and receive a diagnosis should end. If a woman has discovered a breast problem and is concerned, she should be able to see her GP, and be seen without delay by a specialist team at a breast cancer clinic, who can carry out the essential tests on one day.
What progress has been made, and when does the Secretary of State expect to be able to fulfil that pledge?
In September 1996, the Labour party announced that the first £30 million of the first £100 million saved by cutting down on red tape would be used to reduce waiting times for cancer surgery. What progress has been made with that money, and when does the Secretary of State expect it to be fully committed?
In a statement in June this year, the Secretary of State said that, as a result of the decision to postpone the eighth wave of fundholding, £20 million would be saved, of which the first £10 million would be available to breast cancer specialist centres throughout the country. Will he tell the House whether that has happened?


Is the Secretary of State aware that the Health Service Journal reported that many health authorities had already spent hundreds of thousands of pounds equipping potential GPs? Quite a lot of GPs are becoming fundholders next year, so it would appear that the eighth wave has not been totally postponed.
I notice that the Secretary is not taking a single note of any of these questions, which perhaps shows the regard he has for the importance of reporting to the House on his duties. These are serious questions, and people outside the House have an interest in having them answered. He apparently does not share that view.
Has the postponement of the eighth wave of fundholding saved £20 million? That seems unlikely. If £10 million has been spent on breast cancer services, from where has that money come? What other national health service budget has been reduced to fund the service? Is an extra £30 million actually being spent on cancer services? Since June, when the Secretary of State made the promise, has £10 million been spent on improving breast cancer services?
The Secretary of State mentioned his forthcoming White Paper. We were led to expect it in September, and then in October, so he is obviously having some difficulty with it. Will he tell us when it will be published?

Mr. Dobson: I shall deal briefly with the points raised by the shadow Secretary of State that are irrelevant to breast cancer screening. To the best of my knowledge, we never said that we would produce a White Paper in September: we expect that it will be produced this month.
The hon. Gentleman asked about extra spending on breast cancer services. We announced the postponement of the eighth wave of fundholding, which released £20 million, £10 million of which has already been spent in cancer centres all over the country to improve the service provided for women with cancer, although it is not to do with screening. I emphasise that that money has not merely been released: it is being spent now in various parts of the country.
An NHS executive letter is going out today spelling out the changes that we require. No doubt further executive letters will go out when we have had time to consider the more detailed recommendations in the report, which was completed only on Friday. It is foolish for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that this matter springs only from the shortcomings of two radiologists in Exeter. Headlines in the report say:
Lead purchasing has failed the breast screening programme
and:
Lack of expertise and resource in lead purchaser Health Authorities
and:
The result: a quality assurance service that is unable to take effective action".
The basis of my statement is that there is no point in trying just to blame two radiologists: there will always be things that go wrong with the reading of mammographs and the reading of cervical cancer slides. The object is to have a system that identifies things when they go wrong, and puts people in positions of authority to do something about it. The system that we inherited from the last

Government, which probably was not too strong in the first place, was seriously weakened by the changes that occurred when regional health authorities were abolished, and that has meant that the quality assurance system throughout the country is weak. It needs to be strengthened, and we will strengthen it.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and thank Sir Kenneth Calman and his team for their excellent report. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the swift and firm action that he has taken today, which is in contrast to the activities of Conservative Governments over the past 18 years. Will he confirm, however, that the report has not been watered down or toned down in any way as a result of the threat of legal action by one of the consultants concerned?

Mr. Dobson: I am not sure whether I am supposed to say this, but I will, because I think that the House is entitled to know.
We were challenged in the High Court by Dr. John Brennan on Friday, and both the chief medical officer and I agreed to three minor changes in the text of the report. As far as I could see, those changes did not really change the meaning of even the sentences in which they were included, let alone the general drift of the report; but that apparently satisfied Dr. Brennan, his lawyers and the judges, and I thought it better to agree to those three minor changes than not to present the report to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I approve of both his concern for action to be taken, and the action that has been announced. It is important that we have in the national health service a standard of care that is enforced so that it is applicable across the country, and does not become a lottery that depends on where people live.
In that context, will the Secretary of State reassure us that the regional officers system of monitoring is the best? Would it not be worth considering the idea of a national inspectorate for services such as those that we are discussing, which could do its job wherever and whenever it was required to do so? Are we sure that we have enough radiographers and radiologists around the country, both in practice and in training? Are we sure that we have the resources not just to deal with routine screening, but to ensure that particularly vulnerable people are not missed in the efforts to deal with the volume of people who pass through the very desirable screening process?

Mr. Dobson: There are possible shortages of radiologists and radiographers, which will take a long time to address. We cannot just snatch radiographers out of the air. We will, however, do what we can to make available any resources that are necessary.
The small group of extremely expert people who were under the guidance of Dame Deirdre Hine considered whether local, regional or national quality assurance would be the best option, and came down firmly in favour of the regional option as being the most practical, and bringing the surveillance and monitoring as near as sensibly possible to the people actually doing the work. I am sure that everyone will want to consider that, but,


given the circumstances and the need to get on with things, I have told the national health service that it must adopt that option.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speedy way in which he has reacted to a tragic and serious situation. The women who suffer from this killer disease—the real foot soldiers—realise that the situation exposes the stupidity of introducing an internal market in the national health service.
Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the pilot studies being conducted on bringing older women into the recall system? As my right hon. Friend knows, Age Concern and many other agencies representing older people are pressing for that and think that it would be worth while.

Mr. Dobson: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, who has done a great deal of sterling work in this sphere. The studies into the practicability and health gain from screening women over 65 are continuing, as are parallel studies about the merits or otherwise of screening younger women. I am not in a position to report on the state of progress on either of them.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As I was the Secretary of State who commissioned and began the implementation of the Calman report, I obviously take a special interest. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, increasingly, the general public will be more demanding and discerning about quality assurance, and one of his challenges will be how he can deliver and meet that growing expectation. I urge him to visit the Jarvis centre in Guildford, a breast screening service of great excellence, and one of the early centres.
I detect an encouraging sign. With the delay in the publication of the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper, I note a softening of his approach towards NHS managers, whom he initially appeared to be regarding only with contempt. It seems that he is beginning to see that they have some merit.

Mr. Dobson: In answer to the right hon. Lady's final point, I have always been in favour of good managers in the national health service, who manage to the level that one might expect from the salaries that they receive. I applaud the good managers, but I do not applaud the mismanagement that went on or the Ministers who introduced a system that made it more and more difficult to manage quality assurance in breast cancer screening, as has been made obvious not by me but by Dame Deirdre Hine, the former chief medical officer for Wales.
The right hon. Lady asked about expectations, but we are not speaking about rising expectations. Women have been entitled to expect top-quality services in every part of the country and a system that spotted things that were going wrong and did something about them. We are talking about the failure of management, clinicians and politicians to deliver the standards that people could reasonably have expected in the past, let alone higher expectations in future. I have visited a number of breast screening centres, including the one in Cardiff which has been so brilliantly successful under the encouragement of Dame Deirdre Hine.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on the speedy and

comprehensive way in which he has dealt with the specific cases in the south-west, but on the way in which money has been transferred to breast cancer care. He hits the core of the problem when he speaks about the internal market. Will he continue his deliberations on scrapping the internal market as quickly as possible? Will he say to hospital trusts that have the opportunity to merge and develop to stop sticking their feet out and put patient care first?

Mr. Dobson: We are progressing as quickly as we can with removing the internal market. In view of the failures of the lead purchaser system in relation to both cervical and breast cancer, we are reviewing the whole concept of lead purchasers in any part of the country, because, on the evidence that is available to us so far, it is not working.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Given the level of anxiety about this matter in Devon, I thank the Secretary of State for the speed and, dare I say, decisiveness with which he has acted in this case. I hope that the suffering of women in the west country will not be used as an opportunity to score political points. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that should extra resources be needed to make the breast cancer unit at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital a viable, efficient and successful unit, he will treat it as a priority and make sure that that excellent hospital receives extra resources?

Mr. Dobson: I am sure that any extra resources that are needed to make the hospital work properly can and will be found, but the general point is that to do things clinically badly and to manage things badly is frequently more expensive and more demanding on resources than doing them properly. If it can be done properly in other areas, it should be done properly in Exeter. I pay tribute to the relatively new chief executive in Exeter, who, as soon as this was drawn to her attention, started sorting it out, in marked contrast to her predecessors, some of whom have gone on to promotion in other parts of the NHS.

Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for presenting the report, especially just after the end of a month in which breast cancer awareness has been at the top of the agenda—last week, I was happy to publicise that with women Members on both sides of the House. Does he agree that, in their lifetime, one in 12 women may be affected by breast cancer? Only recently, he opened the Jasmine centre at Doncaster royal infirmary, which shows the way ahead in dealing with the problem. It offers one-day, one-stop testing and diagnosis. That is how we should treat and deal with the problem for the 21st century. The centre has got off the ground only with money from this Government after the general election.

Mr. Dobson: I was very pleased to open the Jasmine centre, whose combined characteristics women would expect in these circumstances. It has state-of-the-art equipment, but it is also furnished, upholstered and generally laid out in a comfortable and homely way; much waiting and hanging about are involved in screening. It is, therefore, a place where people get the best of high-tech combined with tender loving care. That is what people want from the health service, not just for screening, but for everything else.

Mr. John Burnett: We are grateful for the speed with which the report has been


produced. Did the inquiry or report address any possible conflict between consultants' duties and responsibilities to the NHS and their duties elsewhere, in the private sector?

Mr. Dobson: The report does not deal with that, so I cannot comment. All I can say is that what went on when the consultants were there was the problem, not what did not go on when they were not there.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Government had three measures of success in the health service—the novelty of management techniques, the total amount of money that was spent and the total number of procedures that were carried out-to the almost complete neglect of the quality of service? We often find that, when more money is spent and more procedures are carried out, there is a proportional decrease in the quality of the service.
We are all grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said and for what he has done throughout his period as Secretary of State: he is putting the emphasis on quality and on the outcome of procedures. He must root out from the health service all the incompetence that is around. Of course, it is not universal—he rightly paid tribute to what is happening in Cardiff and elsewhere—but where there is poor-quality work and incompetence at the top and lower level in the health service, it becomes literally a matter of life or death.

Mr. Dobson: I agree with most of what my hon. Friend has said. Our White Paper aims to have an NHS that is geared to having quality standards and a system that delivers those standards. I am confident that we will be able to carry the clinical professions with us because they are showing much enthusiasm for the proposals that we are discussing with them before they go in the White Paper. It would appear that the only people who are not up to speed on what NHS patients and staff want are the official Opposition, whoever they may be.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his very positive statement this afternoon. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that breast cancer screening was a matter of life and death. Indeed it is.
The assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has given, following the failures in Exeter and Canterbury, will provide great reassurance to the women of this country, who rightly expect the national health service to provide them with the quality service that we all want, wherever we sit in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman announced a change in the system. Will he assure me that the new system, which I support, will be continually monitored to ensure that no further failures occur?

Mr. Dobson: We cannot ensure that no further failures occur in the clinics. Failures will occur from time to time, because it is not a precise science. We need a system that

does not fail to pick up things that are going wrong. I am confident that the measures that we are putting in place at local, regional and national levels should deliver what the hon. Gentleman and I want.
Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts over the years to sustain the national health service and work for top-quality services.

Mr. Peter Viggers: In examining a tragic local problem, the Secretary of State has also identified much more comprehensive difficulties. It is clear from what he said that he intends to devote considerably more resources to, and place greater emphasis on, breast cancer screening. I welcome the extra resources for that area, where the staff involved are highly skilled. It is a stressful area, as I know because my wife works in it as a doctor. What extra costs will fall on the NHS, and from which budget will they come?

Mr. Dobson: At this moment, I am not promising any extra resources. I said that I want to change the system so that the present resources are deployed to greater effect and so that we produce top quality. If, in the end, people make a convincing case that they cannot do that without additional resources, I will be prepared to listen and see what I can do—but they will have to make a convincing case. As I said earlier, badly run places frequently cost more than well-run ones.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: The terms of the Secretary of State's statement will give rise to obvious concerns about the quality and standards of breast cancer screening throughout the country.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to headlines in the report. Will he outline the proportionate difficulty experienced around the country by referring to the evidence in the report, rather than to the headlines derived from the evidence? In that way, those listening to his statement—as hon. Members will have done carefully—will be able to see the matter in its proper proportions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the abolition of the internal market and the centralisation of quality assurance services. Does he agree that, for the time being, it remains the responsibility of purchasers to obtain those services on behalf of patients? Does it make sense for quality assurance to be separated from the purchasing function, as, to my mind, quality assurance and purchasing form part of the same function?

Mr. Dobson: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, there is a basic philosophical and management division of opinion. Unless I am misreading the Calman-Hine report, it suggests that it is probably best to separate the quality assurance function from the purchasing function. However, I am prepared to look carefully at that matter to determine whether the opposite case is more convincing.
In fact, quality assurance was not centralised; it was first balkanised and then virtually abandoned, so that there was no one in the system—nationally, regionally or locally—who had the responsibility, resources and authority to do anything about quality assurance. The split for breast cancer screening was introduced with the abolition of the regional health authorities.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the matter of North Wales and the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

After Clause 1

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government are not prepared to allow exemptions to the general handgun prohibition proposed by the Bill. We considered very carefully before introducing the Bill, and reconsidered over the summer, whether there was any way in which we could allow pistol target shooting to continue for both disabled and able-bodied shooters. We concluded that there was not. Small-calibre pistols can be as lethal as those used by the killers at Dunblane and at Hungerford, and, in most cases, they would be just as easy to conceal by someone who is determined to perpetrate an outrage.
We have not avoided the Bill's consequences. We have made it clear from the start what the effect will be, and we have made no attempt to conceal that effect. The way in which the Bill affects disabled shooters is a regrettable consequence, but we thought that a total handgun ban was necessary in the interests of public safety. We accept that the exceptions to the ban that are already in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which are largely occupational, should remain. We do not accept, however, that any other group of shooters should be exempt from the ban.
During the Bill's passage, an equally plausible case has been made for other groups of shooters. There is no reason why any one of those groups is any more deserving than the others, and to allow exceptions for them all would make a nonsense of the handgun ban.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I may have misheard what my hon. Friend the Minister said,


but perhaps he will clear the matter up. He is not saying that disabled shooters represent some threat to public safety, is he? Will he, please, take it on board that, because of their disabilities, many shooters with disabilities, and especially those who use wheelchairs, cannot use an alternative firearm, such as a shotgun or a rifle. That is the case that is being argued. Will he deal with that issue, please? Those shooters have no alternative way in which to continue shooting.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right to say that I did not suggest that disabled shooters pose a threat to public safety. However, exemptions that would allow handgun ownership among members of the public, whether disabled or able-bodied, would drive a coach and horses through the Bill and pose a danger to public safety. That is precisely the point that I made. The point is not about individuals but about handgun availability and possession by members of the public.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I should like to make a slightly different point from that made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). Did not the Minister just say that, in this matter, no group of people is more deserving than another? Is he not incorrect in saying that? Surely we must be concerned for the group mentioned by the hon. Member for Erdington: disabled people.
Pistol shooting is probably the only meaningful sport in which disabled people can participate and have any real social life. Will the Minister not examine that point very seriously, and agree that disabled shooters form a group that is very deserving, and more deserving than most other groups, if not all others?

Mr. Michael: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington, at issue is not the characteristics of the group of individuals but the possibility of creating an exemption that will leave handguns in the possession of individual members of the public. There is a danger.
In the last year for which full information is available, there were 398 incidents of theft of legally held handguns. In that year, therefore, there was more than one incident per day—sometimes involving more than one weapon—of guns going from legal to illegal possession. That figure should give pause for thought to anyone who thinks that it is safe to leave handguns in the possession of members of the public.
I make it clear that there is no attempt in the Bill to disadvantage disabled shooters particularly. Disabled shooters will be treated in the same manner as any other target shooters, and will still be able to shoot air weapons, shotguns or rifles.
New clause 2 proposes that disabled people should be able to shoot with small-calibre pistols, which is something that able-bodied people may not do. How would this work in practice? According to the amendment, only registered disabled persons with firearms certificates may use small-calibre pistols. This would cause particular problems for able-bodied supervisors and trainers who would be caught by the ban and unable actively to assist disabled shooters.
4.15 pm
As for rehabilitation, I accept that shooting may form an important part of the process, but I do not accept that that means that only handguns are suitable for the purpose. Other firearms may still be legally held and used by the disabled and others for therapeutic reasons.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have here a letter from the Home Secretary to the British Paraplegic Shooting Association, in which the right hon. Gentleman also says that rifles may be used by disabled people. However, is the Minister aware that a person in a wheelchair would find it very difficult to use a target rifle, because, almost of necessity, one needs to lie on one's stomach to use such a weapon? It is possible to use a rest, but it is not so effective. For someone in a wheelchair, a pistol is easy to use, because one needs only one's hands.

Mr. Michael: The letter from which the hon. Gentleman quotes goes on to say:
We have considered the points made in support of the two Lords amendments …very carefully indeed but remain of the view that it would be inconsistent to allow individual groups of shooters an exemption from the ban. To do so would undermine the principle embodied in the Bill that there should be a complete ban on handguns.
Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to develop the issue of security. If the firearms are to be stored at a designated site, they become a potential target for criminals. I will not go over the arguments we had about licensed pistol clubs in debates on the previous Bill, but there is a substantial risk of theft whenever a potential source of guns is created.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: rose—

Mr. Michael: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will do me the courtesy of listening carefully to what I am saying in order to explain policy, rather than intervening in a manner that suggests that he is not listening to the strong case that I am making.

Mr. Grieve: I hope that I always listen to the Minister with courtesy. He raises the great fear of theft of .22 pistols. Is he aware—I think he is—that, if people wish to use .22 pistols for an illegal or nefarious purpose, they can purchase them across the counter in France and readily import them into this country, a process that is likely to be much easier for those wishing to perpetrate offences than breaking into a heavily guarded shooting club, which meets the exigencies of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Michael: I not sure that the hon. Gentleman is listening or has listened with care—his courtesy is not in question—to the arguments made in previous debates as well as in this one. There is a serious public danger in the private possession of handguns. That is precisely why the previous Government introduced legislation to ban larger-calibre handguns, and why this Government fulfilled an election pledge to give the House an opportunity to vote on the banning of .22 handguns. That danger is very real, as shown by the use of .22 handguns to kill people.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raises the matter of illegally held handguns. It is certainly the Government's intention to do all they can to combat the


availability and possession of handguns, illegal and legal. However, it is a fact that legally held handguns were used at, for instance, Dunblane, which is why, before and after Lord Cullen's report, all the consideration was of how to deal with legally held handguns.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Surely the thrust of the Cullen report was that, in order to deal with the problem, weapons should not be held at home. We are now considering whether disabled people should have access to weapons held at secure centres because of the reasons that justify an exception being made for them.

Mr. Michael: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that point was widely considered in the debates on the legislation introduced by the previous Government and in the earlier discussions on this Bill. We strongly took the view—as did the previous Government—that such exemptions did not undermine the general principle that a ban on handguns was necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the contents of the Cullen report, but we reached the same conclusion as the previous Government—which was widely supported on both sides—that, in the interests of public safety, we should go further than Lord Cullen's recommendations. That remains our view. The amendment would unacceptably undermine the underlying principles of the Bill.
If the weapons are stored at a designated site, it becomes a potential target for criminals. We dealt with that issue in our debates on licensed pistol clubs when we considered the previous Bill. We must accept that there is a substantial risk of theft when a potential source of guns is created.
We are sorry that it has not been possible to find a way to allow cartridge target pistol shooting to continue. We considered the issue carefully before introducing the Bill, and we have reconsidered it over the summer. Our conclusion remains that a complete ban is the only safe option. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Beith: The Minister has advanced a case that many of us find worrying. We should be united on the deserving character of the disabled people to whom the amendment refers. If any exception is justified, surely we should consider this one. The Home Secretary's letter to the British Olympic Association, which was echoed by the Minister this afternoon, said:
It is very difficult to justify isolating one group of individuals, such as … disabled shooters".
I disagree. I do not think that it is difficult to justify isolating that group, because there are particular reasons why they cannot transfer as readily to another sport as able-bodied people can. If an exception can be made safely, there is a case for making it.
The Minister referred to the dangers of theft. The other exceptions that he has found necessary—mainly, but not entirely, occupational exceptions—involve handguns being held at home or in a workplace. If there is a risk of theft, it will lie more in those exceptions than in allowing guns to be held in special centres in limited numbers for the limited purpose and limited group of people specified in the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a greater chance of

small-calibre handguns being smuggled into this country from the continent, where they are freely available across the counter, than there is of a break-in at a centre of excellence, which would have to meet the safety standards laid down by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Beith: Indeed, attempting to break in to Bisley would be an inefficient way for a criminal to attempt to obtain a handgun. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to set all the safety conditions to his satisfaction.
I do not want to enter into the wider arguments about the Bill. We are considering a specific exemption for a specific group. It is unreasonable of the Minister to argue that the danger of theft is so great. Using theft statistics based on the holding of handguns at home to argue against a system under which they would no longer be held at home is not reasonable. Although he separated his figures in the end, he included in his statistics thefts of guns already being held illegally. Thefts from private homes, however, which the Minister had in mind, cannot take place when guns can be held only in specified centres which meet conditions set by him.

Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his comments about not all stolen guns being legally held?

Mr. Beith: The Minister quoted figures for thefts of handguns, which I assumed included thefts of guns that were not legally held in the first place. If I heard him correctly, he seemed to separate out incidents of guns being stolen which had been legally held in the first place. Once the legislation is passed, it will not be possible to steal a legally held gun from someone's home, because guns will not be kept there—unless, of course, that person is covered by one of the other exemptions which the Minister has defended.

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman obviously misheard me. Can he explain his curious assumption that the figures I gave included handguns that were held illegally? Is he suggesting that people who held handguns illegally would wander into a police station and report their theft?

Mr. Beith: The police would come to know of guns that had been acquired illegally not because somebody reported them, but because, when they eventually caught up with someone who was holding guns illegally, they would trace where they had come from in the first place. I thought that that was why the Minister made a distinction in the figures.
The Minister is trying to dodge the main point, which is that it is not reasonable to use figures from a time when handguns could be held at home, and assume that they will apply when handguns cannot be held at home.
The amendment would not introduce a widespread exemption. The exemption relates to a small and particularly deserving group of people for whom it is not possible to transfer to other forms of shooting from which they can gain the same satisfaction and the same levels of skill.
The Bill is a free-vote issue throughout the House; my right hon. and hon. Friends certainly have a free vote. [Laughter.] I do not know why Conservative Members


are laughing. I assume that they have a free vote, and there is supposed to be a free vote for Labour Members. One or two Labour Members have spoken out with considerable independence during proceedings on the Bill on these and other aspects of it.
Even those of us who believe that a total ban is, in principle, desirable should realise that no ban can be total, as the Government themselves recognise. They have already made some exceptions on occupational grounds. I can think of no more deserving exception than the one proposed in the amendment for disabled people, given the strict conditions that have been set for its operation.

Mr. Frank Cook: I want to deal first with the theft of handguns. I prefer to call them small firearms, because I do not like the term "handguns". I think that I heard the Minister say that 398 legally held weapons had been stolen. I find that figure difficult to accept, because I have seen the results of a survey done by the Metropolitan police a couple of years ago. They recovered more than 600 guns from criminals—people who were using them in the course of their trade. Only one of those 600 weapons had been licensed in the United Kingdom, and not by the individual who had used it to perpetrate his nefarious crimes. There is a great disparity between the two sets of figures. 1 believe that we should look at the matter a good deal more closely, rather than use such sloppy logic, which creates a dodgy base on which to pass any legislation.
In the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn said that he did not want to single out the disabled, because he wanted to treat them like everyone else. That was most laudable, as far as it went, but can we say that disabled people are just like everyone else? The noble Lord went on to say that disabled people could take up another sport. Of course they could. I suppose that someone confined to a wheelchair could take up bingo, housey-housey or tombola, if he or she wanted to compete with able-bodied people.
Disabled shooters compete with able-bodied shooters. Let me ask hon. Members, regardless of party affiliation, how they felt on 2 May when they got the results that guaranteed either their return to the House or their introduction to it. Did they feel a degree of pride?
4.30 pm
When Daley Thompson or our ex-colleague Sebastian Coe stood on the rostrum to receive their medals, I am sure that they felt pride. Was that pride justified? Bob Everitt, the Welsh pistol champion, is severely disabled—he has only one arm—yet he is in the Great Britain able-bodied squad. He is in line to represent Great Britain or Wales—according to whether it is at the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games—and depending on the decisions that we make this afternoon.

Mr. Robathan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in respect of Mr. Everitt and people confined to wheelchairs, it was patronising in the extreme for the Home Secretary to write:
rifles and shotguns … would, in the absence of … pistols, still be available for use by disabled people for … sporting purposes?

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was unfortunate, to put it mildly, for the Home Secretary to write in those terms?

Mr. Cook: I would rather do a body swerve to that question. Whether or not it is patronising, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point.
The announcement was made when I was at the Labour party conference in Brighton. People said to me, "There you are, Frank. They have gathered them all in." I replied, "Yes, they have, but who have they gathered them from?" When they asked what I meant, I said that they had gathered in weapons from people who had complied with the law because they were law-abiding citizens.
That evening, I heard the television newscaster interviewing a police superintendent who said that people did not use handguns to rob banks or post offices—they used shotguns. He said, "Nobody would try to run off a security van with a .22 pistol. They would be out of their tiny minds." I thought, "Just a minute—we have an informed professional telling us that we are banning weapons that should not be banned and identifying shotguns."
What did that tell me? I am not a very clever person; I am quite simple really, but that does not mean that I am stupid. That policeman was talking about shotguns being the danger, and people are talking about that now. If the Minister tells me that a person in a wheelchair can use a rifle or a shotgun, I have to ask him, for how long and when will the next move be made?
To return to disability, what are we to say to Bob Everitt from Wales, and to Ian Horn, the European 1500 unclassified 1995 champion who won the expert silver medal in 1997 and has severe spinal injuries? Should we tell them to go and play golf or to have a game of five-a-side football in their spare time? Such people have worked for years and spent fortunes on specialist equipment and special weaponry—not the variety that is used on the street. It would be a waste of time a criminal carrying such a weapon.
Such disabled sportsmen have spent a lot of time, money and effort getting some tribute for this country. If we do not accept the Lords amendment, we are denying them that right. I do not think that we have the right to deny them that right.
A competition called the Pistol Anno Domini, in which disabled shooters used to take part, used to be held at Bisley—until legislation was introduced. Not only disabled shooters took part; each year there were 5,000 competitors—with their families—all of whom arrived with their pistols suitably boxed, cleaned, oiled and ready to take part in the competition. It was the biggest event of the year.
I would like the House to know how many police officers were required to supervise the competition each year. Does any hon. Member care to make a guess? The answer is: one. Does the House know why? There was one police officer because he was participating in the competition. There was not one official policeman on duty to supervise the event. That is the kind of threat that we are talking about quelling. That is the kind of sloppy logic that is being used.
How do we justify the sloppy logic? My guess is that the public opinion argument is used to justify it. I understood the surge of concern and anger when Thomas


Hamilton committed that barbaric act, bearing in mind that his first certificate was illegally held and that his initial weapon was illegally procured. Every subsequent deal was therefore ruled out under the law—if the police had taken the trouble to apply the law.
I could understand the public opinion. I, like everybody else, was sickened, just as I was sickened after Hungerford, when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) served for the Opposition on that travesty of a Bill, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. We made a mess of the legislation then, and we are making a mess of it now. We have had a perfect opportunity to take the whole legislative framework relating to shooting and weaponry and make sense of it, and we have not done so. We are dealing with it in a piecemeal way, and that is foolish.
I return to the issue of public opinion, the driving force, the promises that were made and the media-driven propaganda that has been put out. I have the results of a MORI poll that was conducted between 24 and 26 October—so it does not have whiskers on it. The question asked was:
Which, if any, of the following groups of people do you think should be excluded from a ban on small-calibre handguns and so be allowed to have them?
The first group cited was:
Supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols by disabled people in cases where it can be medically proven their disability means they cannot take part in other types of competitive sport.
I suggest that that relates directly to the Lords amendment.
Only 1 per cent. of those asked responded "Don't know", 5 per cent. responded "Depends"—it could depend on anything—and 56 per cent. said that the first group should be excluded from the ban. That is akin to the figure used in the newspaper today to justify Government support for the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. I suggest that if 57 per cent. in a survey in the press is enough to support that measure, 56 per cent. in a survey on the street should be sufficient to support the amendment. I have other figures, which I will come to later because they relate to the other amendment.
I sympathise with the Minister, because he has been talked into a corner by members of his party and the Government. The inclusion of the disabled is unenforceable and unnecessary, and there is no justification for it. They will suffer a double condemnation, because they have worked so hard, done so well, and represented their country so well. They have brought back some national pride, which we seem sadly to be losing at the moment. I know that the Minister has problems, but I appeal to him not to oppose the Lords amendment for the sake of trying to make everybody the same. That is not justified, because everybody is not the same.
The Bill will stop me, as the captain of the Palace of Westminster rifle club, going elsewhere to shoot. In fact, the law of the land does not apply here. We do not abide by licensing rules in Crown buildings. The rifle club will continue because it is Black Rod's property. Once the ban applies, if I go elsewhere, I will have to do something like gymnastics. [Interruption.] I was trying to find out whether hon. Members were awake. It seems that they are, but only to the funny side.
The matter is not funny. People have worked hard to gain the pride that Daley Thompson and Seb Coe felt in competition, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, felt when you were elected. I am sure that you were proud, as I was, that the people maintained their faith in you. There is a place for pride. Let us allow the disabled to keep it, for God's sake.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). No one in the House has fought harder for good sense in the legislation. His knowledge is unequalled and the research that he has undertaken has been magnificent. I regret only that the House is not prepared to listen to him.
I have been a Member of Parliament for some years, and I have seen legislation introduced as a knee-jerk reaction; the Bill is another example of such a reaction. It is extraordinary that people with a disability who have achieved excellence in shooting small-calibre handguns will be forced to go abroad to follow their interest in their sport. I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Stockton, North about the Minister, who has been pushed into a corner. To say that the disabled must be treated like any other group is wrong.
The amendment makes it clear that the small-calibre handguns in question would be stored at and used only at the centres of excellence and would—as the British Olympic Association states in a letter to the Home Secretary—only be
transferred to and used at premises at which … competition is taking place".
To suggest that the amendment would open up the centres of excellence to risk or make them vulnerable to people who might break in, as the Minister suggested, is stretching the imagination a bit too far.
4.45 pm
As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, it would be easier for someone who wished to carry out an offence with a small handgun to take a day trip to France to purchase it across the counter and bring it back. They would, of course, have to go through customs, but their chances of managing that are pretty good and it would be easier than breaking in to Bisley or one of the other centres of excellence.
The exemption for disabled people was added to the Bill in another place. My study of the voting on the amendment shows that support was found in all political parties, including the Labour party. The British Olympic Association also points out in its letter:
The exemption for disabled people, who would be able to use such centres, is also important since cartridge pistol shooting is one of the few sports in which disabled people can take part"—
the next few words are important—
on equal terms with able-bodied competitors.
Disabled people"—
as the Minister must be aware—
are specifically presented with pistol shooting"—
as doctors and others will confirm—
as a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport.
That should be recognised and it is tragic that the Government are opposing a reasonable amendment to the Bill, which could be policed with a 100 per cent. chance of success.


As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, the statistics gathered by the Metropolitan police show that only one weapon had been used in some 600-plus cases involving weapons. That is a telling statistic.

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I give way to the hon. Gentleman most willingly.

Mr. Cook: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The Metropolitan police said that only one of the 600-plus weapons that they had taken from criminals had been licensed in the United Kingdom—and it had not been licensed by the perpetrator. All the weapons had probably been used.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which makes my comments even more valid, since the Minister and his colleagues are not prepared to give credence to that important statistic. Facts speak louder than words, and the statistics cited by the hon. Gentleman should carry weight. It is tragic that this debate is not a debate at all, because people are not listening to the argument. If they were, the case put by the hon. Gentleman would carry weight with the Minister and he would accept the Lords amendment.
It has been said before that, although resisting the amendment may appear to be the brave option, the brave option would in truth be to listen to the good sense of the noble Lords who supported the amendment in another place and to the views expressed this afternoon in the Chamber, not least from the Government Benches. I plead with the Minister not to inflict on the disabled shooters of this country a total ban that will take away so much from their lives, making them less satisfactory and meaningful than in the past.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in applauding the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), a doughty defender of the right of the bona fide citizens of this country to use licensed firearms. The House will not have been impressed by the justification given by the Minister for refusing to accept the amendment, and we must hear from him exactly how accepting the amendment would endanger the public.
The Minister stressed that the Government must do all they can to combat illegally held handguns, and the public will want to know specifically how he proposes to remove such handguns from society. He must give greater consideration to the amendment, which insists only that a tiny number of disadvantaged and disabled people be allowed to continue their sport.
It is a mean-spirited Government who cannot accept the argument so ably advanced by the hon. Member for Stockton, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. They, like me, cannot accept that a complete ban is the only safe option for the public. Other lethal weapons, which can be bought openly today without a licence, are perfectly capable of inflicting just as much damage as handguns, if not more. Home Office Ministers should pay attention to those weapons, rather

than continuing with their mean-spirited measure to rub out a sport for people who cannot enjoy other sports and who suffer severe disability.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North talked about public opinion. We all know the history of the Bill—it has its origins in the Government's wish to respond to public opinion. However, the House is not here simply to respond to every whim of public opinion. We are here to defend the freedoms and the liberty of the British people. One cannot rub out at a stroke the rights, freedoms and liberties of British people to do things within the law, and changing the law in this respect is, in my opinion—an opinion shared by other hon. Members—quite wrong.
We know how we got here. "We must do everything we can to make safety paramount," says the Minister. Many years ago, when I was chairman of a local education authority, I laid the foundation stone for an infants school in Wolverhampton. Not many weeks after the awful events at Dunblane, a man ran amok at that school with a machete, causing anguish, pain and injury to young people and their parents in my home town of Wolverhampton. It is interesting that we are not talking about banning machetes. Events at that school, St. Luke's, showed that a machete in the hands of the wrong person is dangerous, just as a gun in the hands of the wrong person was dangerous at Dunblane. However, there has not been a reaction against machetes, knives and other dangerous weapons, as there has been against handguns.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North made the point that many of us suspect that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that, although the Government are intent on proscribing handguns at this stage, the time is fast approaching when they will introduce measures to ban all other firearms. The House must realise that that is the hidden agenda, and I wish to take this opportunity to make sure that that message goes out to the British people. We are in danger of misunderstanding what the Government are doing today. I repeat—rejecting the amendment is mean-spirited. In his winding-up speech, the Minister should tell the House how many handguns would be involved if this small section of society were allowed to continue their sport.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: This is something of a phenomenon: I intend to speak against the amendment, and it is unusual in this Parliament for a Labour Member to find himself in a tiny minority in the Chamber. I now know how Opposition Members feel every day.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) well knows, he and I take entirely opposite views on this important issue. He knows that well, because he knows that I have campaigned for many years for the total abolition of handguns. It was a matter of great joy to those of us who have campaigned on that issue when that abolition became a reality.
I have always listened with great respect to everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North has said, and I have immense respect for his statistical knowledge and views. I know that he respects my views, too. Those of us who have campaigned on this issue for many years know that the issue raised by the amendment is the only one that has given us serious pause for thought. We have no right to stop people's recreation—particularly if it leads to a recognition of the abilities of the disabled—unless to do so serves a greater good.


I have never found comfort in the statistical analysis of this matter, and I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) that the number of disabled people holding firearms is small. However, an important principle has been raised in this House. In banning handguns, the House set its face once and for all against the culture of handgun ownership. I refer not to the handguns themselves or to their number or to the numbers to be handed in but to the culture that lies behind the ownership of a weapon whose only designated purpose is the taking of human life. That is the basis on which the House has acted and will act.
I am speaking for two reasons. First, I want to make it clear why many of us will vote against the amendment. Secondly, while I know that I am in a small minority in the House, I am here to demonstrate that those of us who have campaigned on the issue are here to listen—

Mr. Corbett: I am certainly not arguing over the principle of the Bill, but will my hon. and learned Friend at least acknowledge that 999 of every 1,000 shooters who are to lose the right to hold handguns have alternatives available in the form of rifles and shotguns? The tiny proportion who are people with disabilities do not have that choice. They either take part in competition pistol shooting or they have to get out of the sport altogether. Can he persuade me, as the Minister has failed to do, that allowing that small group of disabled shooters the right to continue to take part in pistol shooting would represent any threat to public safety?

5 pm

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said and I will say what I have, in effect, said already—we are faced with a matter of balance. I acknowledge immediately that, given the small number of handguns that would be held, the risk to public safety would be very small. That is not an issue. The importance of this measure is its cultural nature—setting one's face 100 per cent. against and saying that there are no exceptions to this law. As a sportsman, I take no pleasure in taking sport away from anyone, particularly from disabled people who have no other raft. That is why the matter has been strongly debated within the campaign of which I have been a part, and why the opposition that we are articulating is not meaningless.

Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that this is a cultural measure and that there can therefore be no exceptions. He says that that is so because of the nature of the weapon. Does it not then follow that rifles are in the same genre and that shotguns are the same? Is that to be the next cultural step? Will he give an honest response to that question?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I would not dream of giving my hon. Friend any other response under any circumstances. I will simply tell him this. There is a significant difference between the handgun and other forms of firearm. As he well knows, the handgun is the only weapon that has only one specific designation—the taking of human life. That is why those of us who have campaigned have campaigned against handguns alone.

I can give my hon. Friend this assurance. Those of us who have campaigned in that way have no targets over and above the legislation that we are now pursuing.

Mr. Grieve: I listened carefully to the Minister of State, as he asked me to, and to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). The two views expressed point up neatly—we went over this when the Bill first came before the House—the fact that the Minister's position is irrational and untenable.
While the hon. and learned Member for Medway has attacked certain cultural values that he wants to suppress and to supplant with a new era of righteousness, which is at least comprehensible even though I find it abhorrent, the position of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, as expressly spelled out over and again in earlier debates, was that this was a pragmatic move and that its every aspect was to be judged, not as an attempt to get at the gun culture—that had nothing to do with it—but to deal with specific problems. Yet a rational amendment from another place, which has no prospect beyond the absolutely minimal of increasing the risk to the public, is being rejected by the Minister of State, who is unable to give a reason. My only assumption is that his reason is that he is under pressure from hon. Members, such as the hon. and learned Member for Medway, but feels unable to admit it.
Let us try to apply a little common sense. First and foremost, there is not a blanket ban along the cultural lines that the hon. and learned Member for Medway wants. The armed forces and the police will retain the use of the weapons. The statistical evidence, which will be known to the Minister of State, is that there have been occasions in the past decade — very few—when weapons in the armed forces' possession have been stolen and misused. The same is true with the police. Indeed, I regret to say that there have even been instances when those weapons have been misused by members of the armed forces or the police. We cannot get away from such minimalism.
For reasons that I will not go over again as they are so coherent and cogent, the Lords amendment seeks to allow people who would not otherwise be able to do so to enjoy a legitimate sport. I detect that the hon. and learned Member for Medway is thinking, "Ah ha! But I do not like the cultural values underpinning it." However, it is no place of the House to look at people's cultural values. That is the same road that would take us to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran—[Laughter.] It is precisely the same route, because, instead of judging matters on their merits, we would be judging them according to our own cultural values. In fairness, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have consistently avoided that pitfall.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: As far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman has overstated his case.

Mr. Grieve: I do not think that I have. When I first came to the House, I listened carefully to Labour Members and, in particular, the Minister of State. I tried to fathom whether they were trying to act on objective or on emotional grounds—the latter is something that the House should be wary of doing. Although it may be a small step, I nevertheless consider that, when one starts to take such decisions without objective justification, it is the first step down the road to the Ayatollah Khomeini's


Iran, because one is foisting one's own moral values on others when there are no objective grounds for doing so for the protection of others.

Mrs. Anne McGuire: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that nearly 1 million people signed the Snowdrop campaign's petition, which asked the House to consider a ban on all handguns without any exceptions?

Mr. Grieve: I recognise that. As was said earlier, it is for the House to apply objective analysis and to ensure that people who may have strong emotions are nevertheless not allowed to dominate and remove the freedoms of others for no good reason.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman seems to be in some doubt about the grounds on which the Government have approached these issues. They have done so coolly and clinically, judging what is in the best interests of public safety. I can assure him on that point.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful, and I know that the Minister means that, because he and the Secretary of State have said it often. On that basis, his measure is completely and totally irrational. For that reason, the amendment should be accepted.

Mr. John Greenway: Our debate today brings to an end a long process, lasting more than a year and a half, aimed at strengthening our legal controls over the ownership and possession of handguns following the appalling tragedy at Dunblane in March last year.
Everyone in the House is agreed that such a shocking and horrific incident, in which so many young children and one of their teachers were so brutally murdered, must never happen again. We are united in our resolution to put in place the most appropriate measures to achieve that. In a moving speech, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) again demonstrated this afternoon that people who shoot for sport feel as passionately and strongly about that as anyone else.
The process of reform on which we embarked all that time ago required a cool-headed and dispassionate examination of the risks posed by certain categories of handgun and the recognition that there are legitimate uses for some guns, but that the greater risk to society is posed by guns that are illegally held or easily obtained by criminals. Above all, there is the need to balance conflicting interests in a way that does not compromise public safety. Such considerations go to the heart of the amendment agreed to in another place, which we are now asked to consider.
Since the Dunblane tragedy, each one of us has had ample opportunity throughout the parliamentary process to express our personal point of view. The House will recall that, last summer, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I was then a member, considered in some detail the existing framework of the law controlling the ownership and possession of handguns. The Committee took detailed evidence on how that framework might be improved.
It is now a matter of record that the Committee divided on party lines. Along with my Conservative colleagues, I took the view that a complete ban on all handguns was impracticable because there were various genuine and legitimate uses that posed no real threat to public safety. Even the Bill recognises the requirement that guns should be used, for example, in the course of animal welfare and husbandry.

Mr. Frank Cook: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will care to compare the views that were expressed during the sittings of the Select Committee with the recommendations that were published in Lord Cullen's report.

Mr. Greenway: I had not intended to do that. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, however, that there was a great deal more symmetry between what was proposed in the majority report and what Lord Cullen proposed, he is right. The previous Conservative Government and the new Labour Government have taken a much more stringent view than the one taken by Lord Cullen or the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
I took the view, as did my colleagues who were members of the Select Committee, that there were—and there remain—legitimate uses of handguns that pose no real threat to public safety. Time has already shown—and will show increasingly in future-that that was the correct judgment.
The sport of competition shooting, which is increasingly popular among disabled groups, was a use of pistols that we had in mind when recommending that an outright ban on all handguns was inappropriate. In our inquiry, we did not seek to differentiate between various categories of handgun, but we noted the destructive potential of recently developed high-calibre, multi-shot pistols.
The previous Government went beyond Lord Cullen's report, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North has said, and concluded that such high-powered, multi-shot, high-calibre weapons had no legitimate place in our society, but that the interests of shooting sportsmen could be accommodated by restricting the use of handguns to .22 calibre pistols kept only in the most secure gun club premises.
The two amendments passed in the other place at the instigation of senior Government Back-Bench peers, not of senior Conservative peers, show that the Conservative Government was entirely right to make such a distinction and that the new Labour Government's decision to seek legislative approval through the Bill for a blanket ban on all handguns is wrong.
An absolute ban is entirely indiscriminate in its application and as a consequence fails to recognise that there are circumstances in which handguns can and do have an honest and beneficial use which, properly regulated, poses no threat to public safety. Arguably there is no better example of this than the sport of competitive shooting by disabled sportsmen. To suggest that the genuine pursuit of their sport represents a danger or menace to the community at large is thoughtless, insensitive, insulting and offensive to the many disabled people who take part in competitive shooting, who have so successfully represented their country, for example, in the paralympics, and to all disabled people.


At the most recent paralympic championships in 1996, disabled shooters from Britain won gold and silver medals and set a new paralympic record. Medals have also been won in recent years by our disabled sportsmen in both the European championships and the world disabled shooting championships.
5.15 pm
Without the amendment, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Britain to host paralympic championships in future. The host nation must be capable of staging all the events that make up the Olympic, games. The paralympics are parallel Olympics, and all the events must be capable of being staged. If pistol-shooting disciplines are excluded, how can Britain convince other countries of its ability to meet the staging requirement, and therefore host the games?
Pistol shooting is a popular sport for the disabled because it is practical and allows a disabled person to compete on more or less equal terms with the able-bodied in a way that is clearly impossible in most sports, which demand physical fitness. Pistol shooting can also have a considerable therapeutic effect—enabling, for example, someone rebuilding his life after a serious accident to improve his balance and co-ordination of hands, eye and bodily movements. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made precisely that point.
Speaking in another place when introducing the amendment that is before us, Lord Howell —a much respected former Minister with responsibilities for sport—suggested that about 100 clubs belonging to the British Sports Association for the Disabled provide shooting facilities for people suffering from a wide range of disabilities, and not only those confined to wheelchairs. Also included are people who are deaf, or even blind, or those who have had limbs amputated or have restricted movement, for example. Some are disabled as a result of injuries sustained in serious accidents, and others have been disabled since birth.
Aided by the development of modern technology, shooting for the blind is a relatively recent phenomenon. I was surprised to hear that it was possible, but what a miraculous thing that it is. Only last year a blind team from Britain won a gold medal in the Dutch open disabled championships. Surely the House should endeavour to safeguard the pleasure and opportunity that pistol shooting brings to those less fortunate than us. That is the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made in an intervention.
Some disabled shooters are able to take part in rifle and shotgun shooting for sport, but they are the exceptions. The House will appreciate that the recoil from a shotgun would make its use impossible for most disabled sportsmen. It is surprising, to say the least, that, when opposing the amendment on behalf of the Government in the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn actively suggested that shotguns would be an appropriate alternative. It is such patronising ignorance of the practicalities involved that has offended many disabled people who shoot for sport.
In reality, for the vast majority, the problems of balance and physical strength and being confined to a wheelchair or having only one arm—the hon. Member for Stockton, North reminded us of Bob Everitt, the Welsh pistol champion—pistol shooting is eminently sensible, suitable and appropriate.
Ministers have argued that disabled shooters could find an alternative in air pistol shooting. That argument was made by Lord Williams of Mostyn in the other place. But where would they do this?
In practice, the Bill will close all pistol clubs in this country. Even clubs that provide rifle shooting are unlikely to survive, as the majority of members shoot pistols. The only solution is to provide, through the amendment, special arrangements to allow disabled pistol shooters to continue their sport, but subject only to the most stringent conditions.
Those who would qualify for exemption from the general ban on all handguns are closely defined in the amendment as those who do not just have a physical disability but are "registered disabled persons" under the criteria set out in the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972—not much room for doubt whom we are talking about.
More important, the exemption also provides strict measures of control. Shooters will have to be approved by the Secretary of State. What greater safeguard could there be than that? They will be able to shoot and use .22 calibre Olympic pistols only in designated premises, and possession of the weapons outside such premises would be permitted only under the strictest conditions, which the Secretary of State himself would specify.
Where is the risk of theft? As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, it is more imagined than real. It suits the Government's arguments, but has no basis. Even under existing arrangements, there is not a shred of evidence that disabled shooters pose the slightest threat to the community. The rigid and exacting framework of controls contained in the amendment surely should remove any possible doubt that granting this exemption would compromise public safety.
Despite such overwhelming arguments, it seems from what we have heard today that the Government remain implacably opposed to granting any exemption to their preferred blanket ban on all handguns on—wait for it—a point of principle. Let us examine that argument a little more closely. Surely "principle" demands that Government be required to protect the interests of minority groups, let alone a group so vulnerable and deserving of our special dispensation as those with disabilities. By rejecting the amendment, the interests of one deserving minority are being set aside and crushed in pursuit of the interests of another.

Mrs. Anne McGuire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, after Hungerford, an opportunity was not taken, in the interests of safeguarding minority rights, and because of that we had Dunblane?

Mr. Greenway: If there are any lessons to be learned about the legislative changes that took place after Hungerford—in many respects they go to the heart of what we are considering today—it is that we concentrated far too much on deciding that certain weapons posed a greater danger than others and not enough on ensuring that the people who by their own actions, by their own behaviour, posed a threat. It is not the gun that kills —it is the person who pulls the trigger. The House has lost sight of that fact in many of our recent debates on these matters.


As I was saying, by rejecting the amendment, the interests of one deserving minority will be set aside and crushed in pursuit of the interests of another. There is always a danger that, in seeking to respond positively to inevitable public demands for legislative action following such awful events as those at Dunblane, government will overstep the mark and go beyond what is necessary or justified. Just count how many amending Bills we have had in the 10 years that I have been here in which we have tried to put right mistakes made by knee-jerk reaction legislation.
For the community in Dunblane and the many thousands—a million was mentioned earlier; I do not know the exact figure, but I concede that it was a lot—who supported the Snowdrop campaign, which prompted the present Government to accept demands for a total ban on all handguns, such is their understandable sense of revulsion and concern that only a total ban will suffice. However, the backing of the wider public, mobilised by media comment, for the banning of all handguns was undeniably based on rather less conviction.
The most telling point today was made by the hon. Member for Stockton North, who said that a recent public opinion survey showed that 56 per cent. of people believe that it would be wrong for the ban to apply to disabled groups. I do not believe that public opinion would have been quite so apparently in favour of a complete ban if they had realised, for example, that people in wheelchairs, or blind sportsmen, would be denied their pleasure and sport. The House must seriously consider that matter when deciding how to treat the amendment.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: rose—

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I give way to the hon. Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The hon. Gentleman asserts that the interests of one deserving minority are being crushed for the benefit of another. Will he define the other deserving minority whose benefits are being safeguarded?

Mr. Greenway: Yes—I have already made that clear. The point that I am making is that that is what the people who signed the Snowdrop campaign and those who called for a complete ban—to which the Government responded when in opposition—feel. From the many letters that I have received, and from much of the media comment that my Conservative colleagues and I on the Home Affairs Committee received as a result of our report last year, one would think that somehow we were evil because we stood in the way, as far as they were concerned, of a total ban. They concluded that, for them, only a total ban will do. My point is simply that if one accepts that, one equally accepts that the interests of another deserving minority—the disabled, people in wheelchairs, the blind, who shoot for sport, in all innocence—will be set at naught.

Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman expressed interest in the 56 per cent. of the generous random sample who were supportive of the disabled still being able to

participate in shooting sports with small weapons. He may be interested to know that supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols in shooting clubs for disabled or able-bodied was supported by 54 per cent.—only 2 per cent. less.
5.30 pm
Mr. Greenway: Doubtless we shall make use of that statistic when we consider Lords amendment No. 3.
As I said at the outset, any rational assessment of a ban on or prohibition of ownership and possession of handguns would have to provide for exemptions, and the Bill does that. It is the view of Opposition Members that protecting the interests of disabled people who take part in competition shooting should be one such exempt group. That is why their Lordships were right to agree this amendment, and why this House would be wrong to reject it.
It is not too late for Labour Members to save the day. The Labour manifesto promised them a free vote on whether to ban all handguns. Comments have been made about whether they will have a free vote, but as I do not receive the Labour Whip, and have no intention of ever doing so—

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, I am about to finish.
I have no intention of receiving the Labour Whip, but I understand that there may be a free vote. The crucial point is that free votes are always associated with matters of principle or conscience. This is a matter of principle. The principle is not that only a blanket ban will do, but that the interests of minorities should come before the interests of big government, dogma and plain pigheadedness. Supporting the amendment will not wreck the Bill, but voting against it and overturning it will wreck the interests of disabled people who shoot for sport.

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to begin by welcoming the fact that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) reminded us of the unity of the House in our determination to do everything we can to prevent a repeat of the massacre at Dunblane. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) reminded us of the plea of the Snowdrop campaigners, who put a passionate, rational and dignified case to the House and to the general public. That is how we should deal with these issues. I praised the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but I was surprised by the rather hysterical ending to his speech.
There is no suggestion that disabled people are a danger, and the suggestion that our amendment is an affront to them is patently absurd. I welcome Conservative Members' interest in the rights of disabled people, because it was Labour Members who, over the years, defended the rights of the disabled when the Conservative Government failed to do so.


We have not lost sight of the culpability of a killer—the person whose finger pulls the trigger—in saying that it is important to remove the risks that are increased by the availability of handguns. That is what the legislation introduced by the previous Government and this Bill are all about.
The hon. Gentleman introduced another red herring when he referred to the Olympic games and the paraplegic Olympics. The Home Secretary and I have repeatedly reminded hon. Members of the powers of the Secretary of State in that respect, and I shall not go further than that, because they may be discussed when we consider later amendments.

Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. Friend made the point that legally certified weapons could be used for crime. Of course they could, if they were purloined by others. However, the police had some control over a proportion of the firearms that were held previously, whereas now they have no control at all because they are illegal. The effect of the Bill will be that that control will be removed.

Mr. Michael: I do not follow my hon. Friend's logic, because legally held handguns will no longer exist. A large number of them are no longer in the public domain: they are not in homes, or on the streets, because large-calibre handguns and a considerable number of a lower calibre have been handed in.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested that the amendment deals with a limited number of people. It is not that simple. He also referred to the problem of pistols that have been smuggled in from abroad. The Government take that issue seriously, but we are not discussing that today. There is a big difference between security at Bisley, to which he referred, and storage and security at other gun clubs. In the past, guns were held in homes and thus were largely anonymous, whereas designated sites would be well known and thus more vulnerable. That issue was discussed more widely in earlier debates on the Bill.
In response to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I must point out that the main problem with the amendment is that it would allow a number of guns to be stored at a site, which would make them a more attractive target for criminals.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield said that this legislation was a knee-jerk reaction. It is not. Although he made occasional references to disabled people, he returned to the arguments on the principle of the Bill. With respect to him and to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), it is they who have failed to listen to the arguments for the Bill, whereas the Government have listened to and considered carefully and judiciously every argument that has been put to them.
The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke about rights and freedoms in relation to handguns, and he referred to machetes. We have a problem not just with machetes, but with knives generally, which is why we pressed for legislation, moved amendments to a series of Bills and succeeded in getting the Knives Act 1997 through

Parliament and implemented it as quickly as we were able. The problem is that such implements have a purpose, whereas a pistol has two uses: target shooting, and to injure, maim or kill.
I take the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North very seriously indeed. I respect them, although I disagree with them. He cast doubt on the figures on the theft of handguns. They are authentic, because they come from chapter 3 of the 1995 "Criminal Statistics", which is in the Library.
I do not accept that this measure is the denial of a right: it is a limitation on a privilege that is allowed in law in the United Kingdom in specific circumstances. My hon. Friend argued with passion that we have been pushed into making our decisions. I disagree with him. When we saw the mess that was made after Hungerford, we thought long and hard before supporting the previous Government's legislation on large-calibre handguns, and going further, as we promised, to allow the House to decide to ban .22 handguns. Public opinion on the exclusion of groups from the ban was measured in terms of which group "if any", and I suggest that "if any" is a significant part of the question.
I think that my hon. Friend intended to be kind when he said that I had been talked into a corner on this matter. I assure him that I believe that there is every justification for banning .22 handguns and that there is no case for this exemption. I respect my hon. Friend's passion, but I think that he is wrong.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) descended to insult and absurdity. I ask him to apply common sense. The use of handguns by the police and the armed forces is entirely different from the use by any group specifically for sport. We must be alert to the dangers of misuse by any individuals who are authorised by law to possess handguns, but there is a difference between those groups.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who said that we are combating the culture of handguns. As a number of hon. Members have said, we must of course deal with illegal weapons and the wider culture of violence; but those issues are not before us today. What is before us today is an amendment that would cause problems for the legislation which received such overwhelming support from the House.
We remain of the view that it would be inconsistent to undermine the principle embodied in the Bill that there should be a complete ban on handguns. We consider that only a complete ban on handguns will provide the necessary degree of public safety. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have made that clear on a number of occasions. It is significant that there has not been the sort of representation from disabled people that would have been expected if the issue were as major as a number of those contributing to the debate have suggested. I believe that those contributions came from people who do not accept that the House has declared its will on the banning of .22 handguns. For that reason, the Government seek to overturn the amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 155.

Division No. 77]
[5.40 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ainger, Nick
Dean, Mrs Janet


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Denham, John


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dismore, Andrew


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dobbin, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Atkins, Charlotte
Dowd, Jim


Austin, John
Drew, David


Barron, Kevin
Drown, Ms Julia


Battle, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Edwards, Huw


Bennett, Andrew F
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benton, Joe
Ennis, Jeff


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Berry, Roger
Fearn, Ronnie


Best, Harold
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flynn, Paul


Borrow, David
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foulkes, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gardiner, Barry


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burgon, Colin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Byers, Stephen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Norman A


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Grogan, John


Caplin, Ivor
Gunnell, John


Casale, Roger
Hain, Peter


Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chaytor, David
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr Lynda
Healey, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coleman, Iain
Home Robertson, John


Colman, Tony
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Hope, Phil


Cooper, Yvette
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim


Cranston, Ross
Hoyle, Lindsay


Crausby, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Iddon, Dr Brian


(Copeland)
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian





Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pearson, Ian


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Ms Jennifer
Pollard, Kerry


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pound, Stephen


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Primarolo, Dawn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Lawrie


Kidney, David
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rammell, Bill


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rapson, Syd


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Raynsford, Nick


Kingham, Ms Tess
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rogers, Allan


Laxton, Bob
Rooker, Jeff


Lepper, David
Rooney, Terry


Leslie, Christopher
Ruane, Chris


Levitt, Tom
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sawford, Phil


Linton, Martin
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Shaw, Jonathan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sheerman, Barry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lock, David
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McAllion, John
Singh, Marsha


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Macdonald, Calum
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


MacShane, Denis
Stevenson, George


McWalter, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mallaber, Judy
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Maxton, John
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Michael, Alun
(Dewsbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Milburn, Alan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Miller, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Touhig, Don


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Trickett, Jon


Morley, Elliot
Truswell, Paul


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Mountford, Kali
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mudie, George
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mullin, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Walley, Ms Joan


Norris, Dan
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Watts, David


O'Hara, Eddie
White, Brian


Olner, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Organ, Mrs Diana
Wicks, Malcolm






Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Wray, James


(Swansea W)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Mike
Mr. David Clelland and


Woolas, Phil
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Harvey, Nick


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Arbuthnot, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hoey, Kate


Baldry, Tony
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Barnes, Harry
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hunter, Andrew


Bercow, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Johnson Smith,


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brady, Graham
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Brake, Tom
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Breed, Colin
Key, Robert


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lansley, Andrew


Burnett, John
Leigh, Edward


Burns, Simon
Letwin, Oliver


Burstow, Paul
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Butterfill, John
Lidington, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cash, William
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Loughton, Tim


(Chipping Barnet)
Luff, Peter


Chidgey, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chope, Christopher
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clappison, James
MacKay, Andrew


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Mactaggart, Fiona


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Madel, Sir David


Corbett, Robin
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maples, John


Cotter, Brian
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Curry, Rt Hon David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
May, Mrs Theresa


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Faber, David
Randall, John


Fabricant, Michael
Rendel, David


Fallon, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gale, Roger
St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Sanders, Adrian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Soames, Nicholas


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Gorrie, Donald
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Stunell, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter





Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wills, Phil


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tyler, Paul
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tyrie, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Walter, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers For the Noes:


Webb, Steve
Mr. James Cran and



Mr. Oliver Heald.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

DISABLED PERSONS: EXEMPTION.

Lords amendment: No. 1, insert the following new clause—

DISABLED PERSONS: EXEMPTION

(".—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(l)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to whom subsection (2) applies to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim—fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (3) below.

(2) A person to whom this section applies shall be a registered disabled person who has a physical disability and is approved by the Secretary of State.

(3) A certificate granted under subsection (2) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and
(b) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify.")

Clause 2

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND APPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 15 to 21.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Michael: The amendment will make the compensation arrangements for small-calibre pistols subject to the same affirmative resolution procedure as for the large-calibre scheme so that a draft of the scheme will need to be debated by both Houses before it can be formally made by the Secretary of State. The amendment was introduced on the recommendation of the Lords Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I ask the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Beith: I thank the Government for accepting an amendment which they showed such reluctance to accept during the debate in the other place. It is right that the House should have an opportunity to consider the compensation scheme on the basis of an affirmative resolution. We are glad that, in the end, the Government conceded the amendment.

Mr. Greenway: I was hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We agree with the amendment, but I want to make a brief comment. My understanding is that the amendment was supported by the Opposition in the other place. We can agree on the amendment if on nothing else, because it clearly makes sense to have similarity of treatment.

Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

Orders of the Day — After Clause 2

COMPETITION PISTOLS

Lords amendment: No. 3, to insert the following new clause—

" —(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (2) below.

(2) A certificate granted under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the pistol is used for training in shooting disciplines approved by the International Olympic Committee for inclusion in the Olympic Games; and
(b) the pistol is used by a person approved by the Secretary of State and on the recommendation of a recognised governing body of the sport; and
(c) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and
(d) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify."

6 pm

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
As I have said, we do not believe that a case can be made for exempting any group of target shooters. Again, I cannot support new clause 4, which would apply to competition shooters. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth games and any future Olympic or paralympic games could be held in this country. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has sought to cast doubt on that. It does not do anyone any favours to suggest doubt where none exists.
As has been explained, both in the House and in another place, a contract has been signed for the 2002 games at Manchester. That can be broken only because of natural disaster or a lack of proper organisation. The Home Secretary can use his powers under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to grant special dispensation to competitors to take part in shooting competitions in this country. Dispensation could be granted to any competitor, whether from this country or elsewhere.
We have already shown that those powers can be used successfully. In September, the Home Secretary granted his authority under section 5 to allow visiting overseas competitors to take part in the 14th European police and pistol championships at Bisley. In that instance, it was not necessary to grant authority to British competitors, as the competition took place before the 1997 Act came fully into force, and home competitors were able to shoot under their firearm certificates.
Nor do I accept that the passing of the Bill will mean that Britain will never again host an Olympic games. Provided that all the sports can be held—and, as I have just explained, they can be—there will be no difficulty in Britain bidding for future games. The British Olympic Association has said that it is not possible to predict accurately how great the impact will be on any future bid. Potential competitors might try to exploit the fact that a few of the sports were banned to our sports men and women, but that will be a small price to pay in the interests of the far greater priority of public safety.
It is not a prerequisite of the games that the host nation has to participate in all events. It is true that, in the past three Olympic games at least—Atlanta, Barcelona and Seoul —the host nation did compete in every event. However, in the last Olympic games, Britain did not compete in baseball, basketball, handball and softball. I do not know whether we would have teams ready for those events for any future games, but whether we did or not would not affect our ability to bid for future games.
It is important to remember that the Bill will affect just six of the 28 Commonwealth shooting competitions, three of the 15 Olympic shooting competitions, and two the 15 paralympic shooting competitions. That leaves a wide range of events in which British teams can take part. As I have said, we believe that, in the interests of public safety, a complete ban is the only safe option. That is why I ask the House to reject the amendment.
It may help the House to refer to the success of the three-month hand-in arrangements under the 1997 Act. Those arrangements ended on 30 September. From the latest information available, police forces in England, Wales and Scotland have received just over 142,000 handguns. Of those, nearly 116,000 were large-calibre handguns that were prohibited by the 1997 Act and 26,000 were small-calibre pistols which were handed in voluntarily. I have placed in the Library a detailed breakdown of those figures by forces.
Those are encouraging figures. Nevertheless, it may be worth adding some explanation. The original estimate of the number of legally permitted handguns—produced by police forces quickly and submitted as evidence for Lord Cullen's inquiry—was 200,490 in England, Wales and Scotland, of which approximately 160,000 were believed to have been large calibre. That number related only to certificate holders and not to dealers. No precise estimates of dealers' handgun stocks were produced, although, for the purpose of estimating costs, we assumed a notional figure of 10,000 nationally, which was based on a very small sample of forces.
The original estimates provided by forces are certainly maximum estimates, produced at short notice. Some forces will have inadvertently included among their estimates other lawfully held firearms such as rifles and shotguns. The figures would also have been distorted by forces using the number of handgun certificate holders who had been authorised to acquire or to possess, rather than the number who actually possessed, which is, of course, lower. Some forces may have included an estimate of their dealers' stocks.
The lack of accurate details from forces about numbers is also a consequence of the absence of any statutory requirement on certificate holders to notify forces of when a firearm is sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of. That weakness has been remedied since 1 October by sections 32 to 35 of the 1997 Act. The eventual setting up of a central database of firearms owners will enable such exercises to be conducted quickly and accurately.
There are further explanations for the difference in the estimate and the number of guns actually handed in. First, some handguns are being retained lawfully under the various exemptions allowed by the 1997 Act. Secondly, some certificate holders have taken their guns abroad and, in some cases, joined target shooting clubs abroad. Thirdly, since 21 September 1996, the Department of Trade and Industry has granted 3,455 small arms export licences, and each licence could apply to more than one firearm. Export licences are not required by individuals taking their firearms abroad for storage and use. Finally, the previous national amnesty was held in June 1996 and it is possible that some owners may have surrendered their weapons without wishing to await compensation. 


Over coming weeks, forces are expected routinely to follow up each certificate holder recorded on their systems who has not been in touch with them. That double check by the police will establish cases of illegal possession.
Assuming that 40,000 remains the estimate of the number of small-calibre pistols, with 26,000 already handed in voluntarily, it is likely that no more than 14,000 pistols will still be lawfully held. I look forward to those further guns being removed as soon as possible. I hope that, after we have dealt with today's amendments, the Bill will proceed into legislation very quickly.

Mr. Beith: The amendment reminds me of a whimsical Flanders and Swann song, which extolled the virtues of the English, especially their somewhat lackadaisical attitude to sport, and which said of foreigners that they practised beforehand, which ruined the fun.
The object of the amendment is to allow British competitors to train and practise to the same high levels as people in other countries with whom they compete, which is now commonplace in all sports. The Bill would make that impossible, except if people went abroad to do so, which the Government seem, by their turn of phrase, almost to be encouraging. It is odd that, although the Government will make provision for these major events to be held when it is Britain's turn to hold them, British competitors will have to go abroad to train for them.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the right hon. Gentleman call to mind the fact that the National Rifle Association was first formed and established at Wimbledon because we had sent shooters to South Africa, who had turned out to be so poor that they had to undertake tuition?

Mr. Beith: With his capacious knowledge of the subject, the hon. Gentleman further underlines the fact that we have moved on since the days of Flanders and Swann to an era where people think it right to train to proper standards for sports in which they are allowed to compete.
I recommended my right hon. and hon. Friends, who had a free vote, to support, if they could, the previous amendment, on the strongly, indeed passionately, held ground that we were doing a terrible disservice to disabled people not to make provision for them. My advice on this amendment is based much more on logic: it just does not seem reasonable that, having conceded that these events should be held in Britain, we have made no provision for our competitors to train in Britain.
On both the amendments, Ministers have argued that there is a total ban and that any modification we make will have the fatal effect of removing the totality of the ban. There is no total ban because exemptions are made for guns to be held for occupational purposes and because the Government have made, and said that they will make, exemptions, so that Olympic and Commonwealth competitions can be held in Britain. Therefore, we are not arguing about whether there is a total ban. All our debates are about what the exemptions should be.
I simply submit that it would be reasonable, given the House's determination not to allow any general availability of handguns, even in specially controlled and secure premises, to make some provision for British contestants to train in this country for sporting events,

some of which will be held here. That is a reasonable plea, which would not in any way change the character of the ban—which, for the reasons I have given, cannot be a total ban and need not be so in this respect.

Kate Hoey: I support everything said by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The amendment is reasonable and the House should support it. I opposed a total ban on guns because I felt that we should have given the Cullen report a great deal more thought. I also felt that it would do nothing to deal with the problem in my constituency—and, indeed, other constituencies—of the constant use of large numbers of illegally held weapons.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has visited my borough and spoken to many people in Lambeth. He has launched a one-month gun amnesty for Lambeth, which is currently under way. Clearly we must tackle the problem of illegal weapons, and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his initiative—although, in fact, the amnesty was called for by the community, not by the police or the Government.
As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, there is not a total ban; there are exceptions. Surely we should be able to make exceptions for our Olympic sports men and women-both able-bodied and disabled—so that they can practise their sport in safe surroundings, with all the very stringent conditions contained in the amendment, with the approval of specialist centres and the rules on the storage of weapons. Everything possible will be done to ensure that the weapons cannot be used illegally, so surely we are taking the Bill one step too far.
It could be made clear that the possession of weapons outside designated premises would not be allowed. We have all sorts of ways to enforce that. The British Olympic Association —a body not known for its radical thinking—would not support the amendment if it did not believe that it could make the system work.
People talk about shooters going abroad to practise, but we should not forget that there is still a part of the United Kingdom where target shooting will continue to be allowed— Northern Ireland, which is exempt from the Bill. Presumably many Northern Ireland people will now become part of the British Olympic target shooting team because it will be the only place where people can practise. In fact, therefore, people will not have to go abroad because they can go to Northern Ireland—which shows the anomalies in the Bill.

Mr. George Stevenson: They could go to the Channel islands as well.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right.
I appeal to the Minister not to get hung up on this fetish about not allowing any exceptions. There is a perfectly legitimate exception that could be monitored and scrutinised, and which would give our Olympic sports men and women the opportunity to compete properly, rather than going into a competition with their hands tied behind their backs. I hope that the House will think about the issue and not just go along with what has seemed, from the beginning, to be a feeling that, if we did not support a total ban, we would be evil people. I do not think that I am an evil person. I have never supported a


total ban, and I certainly do not think that we shall feel proud of this measure if we allow it to get on the statute book.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is not an evil person. She shows a great deal of logical thinking, and certainly more than some of her Front-Bench colleagues.
This is the final debate on the Bill, if everything goes according to Government plans, which is likely. Therefore, today we are witnessing the annihilation of pistol shooting as a sport. I regret that; indeed, I regret the whole history of the issue, including the previous Government's decision to go further than the Cullen recommendations. I especially regret what is happening now, because it is mean-minded and in the spirit of a nanny state.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)— I hope that I am not stealing his thunder—said that the National Rifle Association was set up after the Boer war because our so-called sharpshooters were so hopeless. I hope that we will not be in a similar position when we need highly trained soldiers who can fire rifles. It is bizarre that we should be preventing perfectly harmless people from continuing with a perfectly harmless sport.
6.15 pm
The Bill is illogical. The Home Secretary's letter to the British Olympic Association, a copy of which I received this morning, said that competitors could go abroad to practise. His exacts words were:
Dispensation could be granted to any competitors"—
that is, in pistol shooting—
to shoot in Britain at something like the Manchester Olympics, although British competitors would have to train elsewhere.
That is an extraordinary, twisted logic and, frankly, the right hon. Gentleman should regret that. This is an awful measure, which is being defended by awful logic.

Mr. Frank Cook: This will be the last debate on the Bill. From here, it will go to the other place, and that will be the last that we see of it until it is placed firmly on the statute book. For that reason, I am most grateful that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, showed leniency in allowing the Minister to tell us about the number of weapons that had been handed in — something not strictly in accordance with the amendment under discussion.
It is a great pity that you were not asked to show the same leniency in our attempt to find out about the payment of compensation for weapons that have been handed in. I am getting a huge amount of correspondence from people who, having complied with the law, are sick and tired of waiting for the payment to which they feel entitled and which they were led to believe they would get. They are still led to believe that they will get it, but they do not know when.

Mr. Michael: We have always said that it would be problematic to deal with the number of claims involved, and that the process would take some time. We said that we would deal with the claims as quickly as possible, but that it was impossible to set a deadline. The civil servants and police involved are making great efforts to expedite the process, and that will continue to be the case.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. However, I feel compelled to remind him

that the timetable for handing in weapons was set by the Government—indeed, by both the previous Government and this Government. Surely any hand-in timetable should take account of assessing the value and handing over the cash. It is not sufficient to say, "We have a difficult job." We know that—it was a difficult job that was thought about in the first place, but not for long enough.

Mr. Michael: With respect to my hon. Friend, it was the will of the House during the previous Parliament that the process should apply to large-calibre handguns. The House willed a difficult job to be done. In my view, it has been done well by the police and others. Of course, many claims and assessments have to be dealt with, but we spelled that out when the Bill was before the House and when the order was laid earlier this year. It is something of a diversion to come back to us about a delay, when that delay has always been predicted because of the size of the job to be done.

Mr. Cook: I simply repeat that any timetable for handing in should have taken account of the process of valuation and handing across any compensation. To my mind, those are simple considerations—but I am a simple person.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State paid tribute to my passion and beliefs, but he went on to say, "But he is wrong." He never tells me why I am wrong. It is useless for me to offer arguments and what I consider to be logic if no one offers me the "anti-logic", thereby loosening my opinions and convincing me of the righteousness of the legislation. Currently, I cannot discern that righteousness.

Mr. Michael: I accept that, at least most of the time, my hon. Friend tries coolly and reasonably to explain his viewpoint, and I do the same. I think that I have offered him sense and logic on each of the arguments that he and I have exchanged. The simple fact is that he does not agree with me, and I do not agree with him.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has tempted me to put him to the test. When I raised the issue of Olympic and Commonwealth games, he told me that he had had consultations with the associations and that there was no problem. I believed him. I am not suggesting for one moment that he told me an untruth; he may well have thought that he was accurately informing me. If the information was accurate then, however, the situation has changed a bit since.
On 24 October 1997, I received from the British Olympic Association the only circular that I have received on shooting issues. It may interest hon. Members to know that I have three filing cabinet drawers crammed to the gunnels—not neatly filed in fanfold order, but packed full—with correspondence on firearms legislation. My colleagues sometimes tell me that they are receiving a heavy mail, but I promise the House that I know how heavy the mail can be.
How many of those letters—all of which were individually written—expressed disagreement with my stance? Of three drawers full of letters, only five letters


disagree with my stance. The circular from the British Olympic Association is addressed to all Labour Members. I will not read the entire letter, but it states:
We are writing to ask your help…
The amendment would enable our .22 Olympic pistol shooters to train and compete for international competitions in established Centres of Excellence and avoid the embarrassing situation at the Manchester Games 2002 whereby English, Scottish and Welsh competitors will be able to take part but not train for the .22 pistol events. The safeguards contained in the amendment are absolute. The Centres of Excellence would be approved by the Secretary of State as secure sites. The shooters would be vetted by the Chief Constable,"—
I hope a little better than they were in Dunblane—
would then be vetted and recommended by the governing bodies of the Olympic sport and finally, would need the special approval of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the .22 Olympic pistols would be stored and used at the Centres of Excellence, only being transferred to and used at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place during an Olympic or Commonwealth Games.
The letter expresses the British Olympic Association's current attitude, which varies considerably from the impression that was given to me by the Minister in previous debates in the House.
I do not want to sound as if I am booting the Minister, because I am not. He was very helpful when the European 1500 championship, which is a pan-European competition, was held at Bisley. As we were getting very close to the date of the competition, there was some doubt about whether it could be held. People were coming from the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium and Norway, and from heaven knows where else, but no one knew whether the competition would be held.
During the summer recess, I approached my hon. Friend the Minister, and he was very kind. He telephoned me from his home, we discussed the problem, and he very diligently applied himself to finding a solution. He said, "We will grant a dispensation." Nevertheless, the situation provided an example of the United Kingdom hosting an international competition to which outside shooters brought their weapons so that they could participate, whereas the Brits were rather half in and half out of the competition.
Half the British shooters had retained their .22s, because the date to surrender them had not yet arrived, whereas the other half—who were extra-law-abiding—had handed in their weapons early. Some very good competitors who normally participate in such events had weapons, but some very good competitors who normally participate in such events and represent their country had no weapons. The question inevitably arose whether competitors without weapons would be able to borrow weapons from those who had them. As helpful as the Minister had been with the overall event—which could then take place—he was unable to grant a dispensation to those who had already handed in their weapons.
The event was something of a debacle. Some of our best shooters were without their best weaponry, whereas other shooters—who are probably just as good as our best shooters—were demoralised because their team had been carved up. I suggest that that event provides a technical example of what might happen in future Commonwealth and Olympic games.
The House has already talked about pride, and I have mentioned the pride of people winning elections. I mentioned Daley Thompson and Sebastian Coe. Many

British pistol, rifle and shotgun shooters have brought home the gold and the silver, and we were very proud to welcome them and poured praise on their heads for holding up the flag. Now, however, we are in the crazy situation of saying, "You can take part in a shooting event, as long as you bugger off to the continent or somewhere else to train for it. And don't forget to bring back your stuff." Such a situation is apparently justified by public opinion.
In the debate on Lords amendment No. 1, I quoted from a MORI poll. Unsurprisingly, the same poll questioned public attitudes towards shooting in Olympic and Commonwealth games. As I said, 54 per cent. of the generous sample of people questioned agreed that
Supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols in shooting clubs for able-bodied or disabled people
should be permitted.
Moreover, 56 per cent. of those asked agreed that
Supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols by disabled people in cases where it can be medically proven their disability means they cannot take part in other types of competitive sport
should be excluded from the ban. Of those questioned, 61 per cent. thought that
Supervised training sessions with .22 calibre pistols by the British teams (able bodied and disabled) for the Commonwealth and Olympic games, and other similar events
should be excluded from the ban. That is public opinion—based on a random, scientifically compiled sample—as recently as last week.
Many competitors have had to relinquish their preferred weapon—some of which were custom-made and cost anything from £2,500 to £6,000 each, which is not the type of weapon that the ordinary Jack the lad would use in trying to knock off a post office —and resort to black powder shooting as a form of competition.
I shall quickly explain what black powder shooting involves. It means putting a cap on the end of a combustion chamber, filling the chamber with a form of black powder—very carefully measured—tamping it down with a waxed wad and inserting a ball shot. It then involves shooting at a target—people want to do no more than they did before—to put a hole in a piece of card at a distance of about 25 m. That is the sport of target shooting and that is how dangerous it is—and it is supervised.
6.30 pm
I know how long it takes to load such a weapon, because I did it at Bisley during the Trafalgar meeting three weeks ago. It takes a long time, but I am told that Laura Collins of The Sun, who had no official range licence, who was not licensed to use a section 1 firearm and who therefore held the gun illegally, apparently used one to shoot at a melon. Her article tells how quickly she was able to load the gun, but that has to be an untruth. Furthermore, the melon at which she pointed the gun was an unlicensed target— [Laughter.] It may sound funny, but a melon is an illegal target—one can use only authorised targets. We ought to find this a serious matter and not be facetious.
I am talking about someone who broke the law. Indeed, she was not the only one who broke the law. So did the person who lent her the weapon to perform the foul deed, and her editor, who was either an accessory before the fact, in instructing her to perform the deed, or an accessory after the fact, in allowing her to report it.


There is no doubt—[Interruption.] I thought that someone was calling time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It does not help our proceedings if audible devices are brought into the Chamber.

Mr. Cook: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I promise you that my phone is switched off. It was not me, but I am unable to declare who was responsible for the interruption.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: It was someone on the Opposition side.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend says that it was someone on the other side, which reminds me of something that happened earlier this afternoon and which graphically illustrates the sad state we are in with this legislation. Much earlier today, one of my hon. Friends said, "Frank, I realise that we are on opposite sides in this matter, but how long are you going to take?" That person is not in the Chamber now. I thought that it was rather sad, as I am on the side of the disabled and of the sportsman.
I am also on the side of law and order. The reporter to whom I referred broke the law, but she was paid by an editor who allowed and probably encouraged her. I should like to know what the Home Office did about it, whether any charges have been preferred and whether any action is to be taken; because it is unfair to apply the law so stringently to people who have very little defence and who have been willing to be compliant but allow others to parade and publicise their law-breaking activities in a national newspaper.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be very brief. I was not in the Chamber for the debate on the previous amendment because of Select Committee business, so I do not know how many Labour Members were present to put their boot into the disabled. However, I notice that very few are here now to explain why we do not trust those of our compatriots whose ability is such that they are capable of representing their country at their chosen sport.
One of my favourite quotations comes from Sir Winston Churchill in his "Life of the Duke of Marlborough". He said of the Margrave of Baden that his military epitaph for all time must be that the two greatest captains of his age thought his absence from a crucial field well worth 15,000 men.

Mr. Michael: As these remarks go on the record in Hansard, I must in fairness point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are more Labour Members here than Conservative Members.

Mr. Brooke: The Minister is perfectly capable of doing that arithmetic, as I am, but he also knows what proportion of Labour Members are present and what proportion voted in the Division.
I listened to the Minister's reference to a complete ban. Foreigners in competition are excepted from that ban and are thus treated and trusted above our own people.
When I was elected to the House, I never thought that I would sit here and hear the Government argue such a proposition. Nevertheless, I have chosen to be present on this occasion because of my sense of embarrassment and guilt at such a proposition coming from the Government.

Mrs. McGuire: I had not intended to speak, but, having listened to what has been said, I should like to make a few comments in view of the fact that this will, we hope, be the last occasion that we discuss firearms for a long time.
I have heard a great deal this afternoon about random samples and unlicensed targets. The children of Dunblane were unlicensed targets—

Mr. James Gray: That is a cheap comment.

Mrs. McGuire: It is not a cheap comment. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come and say that in the small city of Dunblane in my constituency.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. McGuire: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Gray: I come from Dunblane.

Mrs. McGuire: I represent the people of Dunblane.
This is the final part of the chapter that will deal with the gun culture in our communities. We have heard much about the liberty of individual groups and about exceptions. The history of the past 100 years or so is littered with instances of individual liberties having to be restrained so that the unfettered pursuit of happiness was not undertaken at the expense of other people. Yes, it is unfortunate that Olympic sportspersons cannot take up shooting, but they still have their life choices.
According to the opinion polls, 54 per cent. of people believe that the sport of shooting should continue. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) might think this is a cheap comment, but if we conducted an opinion poll in Hungerford, 100 per cent. of the people there would ask for a total ban on handguns. I know that 100 per cent. of the children and parents of Dunblane would ask for the same.
The Snowdrop campaign galvanised opinion in this country, and it is incumbent on the House to see the end of the chapter through this evening and reject the amendment. We must recognise that the liberty of the children of Dunblane and that of the people of Hungerford is far more important than the pursuit of any gold medal in the Olympic games.

Mr. Grieve: I wish to pick up just one point at this stage of the debate. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully and then reply, so that I can understand the reasons behind the approach that he has taken.
Let us forget for a moment whether the people coming to compete in this country are foreign or not. The fact is that, having applied their mind to the matter, the Government have decided that it is proper to make an exception to allow certain members of the public— members of the public who, by virtue of being foreign,


will never have been vetted for a firearms licence—to come to this country and use a .22 pistol for competition purposes. I am sure that the Minister will readily agree that he cannot wholly eliminate the possibility that that firearm might be misused. Somebody might go berserk—someone of whose record we have no knowledge.
The Government have decided, on balance, that that is allowable. That is different from the position of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) or the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). In that case, why does the Minister not deem it allowable for Olympic sportsmen to train in this country? There can be no justification for the Government's position. The Minister has come off the moral high ground—from what he said earlier, he was never on it—down to pragmatism, so he must be judged pragmatically on his proposals.
The amendment would introduce a simple, logical exception, just like the exception requested for the disabled. Will the Minister please explain why it cannot be allowed? I can see no logical grounds for the Government's decision, in view of the position that they have adopted.

Mr. Greenway: As I said on amendment No. 1, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made it clear when the previous Government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Bill in November last year that one of the key objectives was to protect the interests of British sportsmen who compete in pistol shooting in international championships such as the Olympics and the Commonwealth games. That was supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Some .32 calibre pistols have been used in Commonwealth games competitions, but the low-calibre .22 pistol has been traditional in Olympic pistol shooting. Target shooting with high-calibre handguns was removed from Olympic competition because those guns were recognised as more dangerous. The amendment would give British pistol shooting competitors the opportunity to practise in Britain for international competition by creating centres of excellence. The plans would require the granting of a certificate, subject to the most stringent conditions.
Such arrangements are vital. If the amendment is overturned, our pistol shooting sportsmen will have to go abroad or to Northern Ireland to train. In practice, they will be banned from international shooting competitions in the country that invented the sport of pistol shooting more than 100 years ago, and has dominated the sport ever since. It has been one of our sporting success stories for a long time. In the past 10 years, British competitors have won 23 medals in Commonwealth games.
As hon. Members know, the next but one Commonwealth games will be held in Manchester in 2002. The Home Secretary has made clear—the Minister repeated it this evening—his intention to use his powers under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to grant the special dispensations needed to allow competitors to take part in those games, but there are no provisions to allow our pistol shooting competitors to train in this country before those games.
In a letter of 27 October to the chief executive of the British Olympic Association—a letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred—the Home Secretary acknowledged that, while a

dispensation could be granted to any competitor, British competitors would have to train elsewhere. What a ridiculous state of affairs!
Usually a Government stumble into such a mess by accident, but not this time. In the aforementioned letter, the Home Secretary stated:
We have recognised since the introduction of the Bill, and made clear in Parliament, that the effect of the Bill will be that British competitors will no longer be able to train in this country.
Let there be no doubt—that was the intention all along. Foreign competitors can compete here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said a moment ago, so why cannot British competitors be allowed to train here?
The Government appear not to care about the interests of British competitors in international pistol shooting championships. Ministers have repeatedly been asked—including tonight —to demonstrate how and why those sportsmen pose a threat to public safety. They have been unable to do so, because no evidence exists.
6.45 pm
The amendment would give the Secretary of State absolute control over who could use the shooting centres, and would add further controls by requiring that any applicant must first earn the recommendation of the governing bodies for competitive target shooting in the United Kingdom. The .22 calibre pistols would also have to be stored and used at premises designated by the Home Secretary.
Surely those safeguards guarantee that the special secure centres will be used only by genuine sportsmen, as recognised by the Home Secretary. Such arrangements have been successfully introduced in Japan to ensure public safety, which is our aim. The Government are usually keen to bring best practice from overseas to Britain, but not on this occasion.
Surely the Government can consider the controls needed on legitimate sportsmen who give up their time to practise to win medals and bring honour and prestige to this country in Olympic competition to be different from those required for public safety. The Government are driven by dogma, for the reasons that we have heard today. They are opposed to any exemptions to a total ban on the grounds, we are told, of principle, and in the mistaken belief that only a complete ban will provide the necessary safety for the public.
That might be a more understandable point of view if a total ban would comprehensively rid society of all handguns, but that is clearly unachievable. However much effort the police, customs and courts put into tackling the problems of illegally held firearms, handguns can easily be obtained illegally, not just on the nearby continent, but among the criminal fraternity in this country.
Firearms amnesties have been successful. The majority of previously legally held large-calibre handguns, banned by the legislation passed by Parliament earlier this year, have been surrendered, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said. There is no reason to doubt that the ban on .22 calibre pistols will not be similarly respected by the law-abiding majority, however much they disagree with it.


Surely the enforced surrender of .22 calibre pistols by our international shooting sportsmen will make a difference to public safety only if those giving up their guns pose a threat to the community. They pose no threat, and no evidence of such a threat has been forthcoming.
Surely the Government's refusal to accept the amendment must be justified on the ground of public safety and not simply on a point of principle. It is a poor principle that imposes burdens and restrictions on people for no good reason except to appear unyielding. I am sure that those who have listened to our debate this evening agree that we have heard no such justification from the Minister.
If the issue of principle has any real bearing on the matter, it surely points in the opposite direction from the one taken by the Government. English law has always followed the general tenet that everything is permitted unless the public interest demands its prohibition. The Government have failed miserably to show why competition shooting poses such a threat to the community that its complete suppression is warranted. If the amendment is defeated, the Bill will go completely against the grain of every principle on which our law generally has been established.
Conservative Members have concluded that the Government's stand on the matter tells us rather more about their character than it does about any sensible, coherent attitude towards gun control. Minority interests simply do not count if, as in this case, they get in the way of the Government's declared intentions, no matter how much their policy objectives are shown to be unnecessary and distinctly unfair.
Increasingly, the Government appear bossy, dictatorial, authoritarian and tyrannical. Any of their Back Benchers who have different points of view are sidelined or silenced. That is true whether we are talking about a referendum on a Welsh Assembly, tuition fees for university students, cold weather payments, the tax on pension funds, the withdrawal of tax relief on medical insurance for pensioners, or assisted places for working-class children in private schools. If the Government do not agree with people, they may as well save their breath, for all the notice the Government will take.
As the hon. Member for Stockton, North has shown, public support for a complete ban is already waning. Let us make no mistake: unless action is taken along the lines suggested in the amendment, the issue will return to haunt the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary when it becomes increasingly obvious that, by their stubborn refusal to compromise and their high-handed and dismissive attitude towards the views and interests of others, they have single-handedly confined our pistol competitors to the third division of also-rans in international shooting competition.
What will happen when Britain bids to hold a future Olympic games? The answer is obvious. It is all very well for the Minister to say that dispensations are available. Other countries will use the ridiculous ban on pistol

shooting to undermine the British case. It is an absolute gift. That is not my view, but the view expressed by Lord Howell, a much-respected former Minister with responsibility for sport, when he supported the amendment in another place. He said:
There is no doubt in my mind that if we cannot say that at an Olympic shooting event British shooters will compete on equal terms with everyone else, that will be held against us." —[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 16 October 1997; Vol. 582, c. 589.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote non-ministerial Members of the other place.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that reminder.
The House must recognise that there are senior members of the Labour party who have great experience of negotiating to bring international competitions to this country and who express their views in no uncertain terms. Their arguments are compelling. They have explained that it is not enough simply to say that there will be a dispensation. The real issue is that, in view of the way things work in such negotiations, our attempts to bring prestigious games to this country will be undermined. That view will become increasingly common. The Government are keen that we should host the Olympic games in future. When they try to do so, they will come up against the problems I have outlined.
That point leads me to ask what the Minister for Sport intends to do. How will he vote tonight? Will he agree with Lord Howell, the former Minister, who backed the amendment in another place?

Mr. Beith: Is he here?

Mr. Greenway: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) steals my thunder by asking whether the Minister for Sport is even here. Will he be here for the vote? We shall have to check the voting record in tomorrow's Hansard.
This is a bipartisan issue. More than one former Minister for Sport in the other place clearly supports the amendment. My noble Friend Lord Moynihan joined forces with Lord Howell to ensure that the amendment was passed in the other place. [Interruption.] Colleagues may barrack. I suspect that history will show that the two former Ministers for Sport, Lord Howell and Lord Moynihan, have performed rather better in their task than the present Minister for Sport, who, in his own words, regards himself as something of a bar-room sage. Where does he stand on the amendment?
We can begin to conjecture about what will happen in the run-up to the Commonwealth games —not in 2002, but next year when they will be held in Kuala Lumpur—or about what will happen in the Olympics in Sydney in 2000. Our pistol-shooting competitors will not be able to train or prepare in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Stockton, North used the word "embarrassment". I can see The Sun editorial now. It will say, "What half-baked Minister thought this one up?"
When, two or three years ago, we pressed Treasury Ministers to do something about what was called the Dublin trip, whereby horses went to Dublin to avoid high rates of VAT, we quickly persuaded them that the position


was indefensible. What sort of trip will our shooting sportsmen have to undertake to train for their sports? The problem will arise next year and in 2000, not just in 2002.
One of the lessons Conservative Members have had to learn is the extent to which tabloid editorial writers appear to have short memories. The day of reckoning will come. The public and the tabloid press may have supported a total ban, but when the consequences begin to be seen, Ministers will find themselves in an embarrassing position.
There is an alternative for Ministers to consider tonight. The Government could admit here and now that they have got the legislation totally wrong. They could accept the amendment, and their Back Benchers could use their free vote to support it. Alternatively—I know the way these things work—they could give an undertaking to take the issue away and to come back with a new proposal to give effect to what our shooting sportsmen deserve and need, and to accommodate the needs of the disabled, about which we talked earlier.
Either way, they can rest assured that the House is certain to pursue the issue again, because the ban is unprincipled, unnecessary, unjustified and unworthy of a tolerant and enlightened society, which, without any compromise on public safety, nevertheless should recognise its responsibilities to minority interests. The Government failed that test in another place two weeks ago and they deserve to be defeated again tonight.

7 pm

Mr. Michael: With the permission of the House, let me say that I thought that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a rather sad speech. It is clear that he has an awful lot to learn about effective opposition. He must know in his heart of hearts that, however much he may disagree with our view, we are doing what we believe is right, and not merely what we believe is popular. We are dealing with important issues, and an important Bill.
The hon. Gentleman made himself totally absurd when he tried to say that the Government were being tyrannical and then went on to quote the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) and Lord Howell in another place —three Labour Members who have engaged in debate on the issues. Quite frankly, rational debate is alive and well on the Government Benches, and seems to be completely dead within the ranks of the Conservative party.
The hon. Member for Ryedale suggested that there were inconsistencies. His view is consistent only if he does not want any ban on handguns. That is a reasonable view, but the issue was decided before the recess, when the House voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on .22 handguns.
The hon. Gentleman accepted that we can and will allow overseas shooters to use pistols in order to participate in Olympic and Commonwealth competition. It is rather sad that he then went on almost to give succour to those who might argue against the ability of the United Kingdom to stage those events. His was hardly a patriotic approach.

Mr. Grieve: In two sentences, one following the other, the Minister contradicted himself. He stressed the great need to ban handguns, and then he said that he would

tolerate the exception in respect of certain sportsmen from abroad. Having accepted that, how does he then justify not providing another exception allowing Olympic sportsmen to train?

Mr. Michael: Once again, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. It has become rather a habit of his. I was responding to the hon. Member for Ryedale.
Quite simply, we have accepted that the ability of Britain to stage the Olympic and Commonwealth games justifies making an exception—as we have agreed to do in respect of Manchester—in order that sportsmen and sportswomen should not be excluded from the possibility of participating in games hosted in Britain. We have always made that quite clear.
We have also made it clear that we shall not extend that exception, which is why we cannot accept the amendment. We have always been perfectly honest and open about the implications of the decision that we have taken. In theory, we could refuse to use those powers in the interests of the consistency that so interests the hon. Gentleman, but it seems pragmatic and sensible to follow the course for which we have argued.
In answer to the hon. Member for Ryedale, it is not a matter of being careless of the interests of sportsmen and sportswomen. We started by considering whether such sports could be protected, and we reached the conclusion that they could not. It is not a matter of sportsmen posing a threat; it is merely that the amendment strikes at the heart of the legislation.
We do not believe that keeping small-calibre pistols at designated sites, as envisaged by the Lords amendment, would provide sufficient protection for the public. We believe that it would create a dangerous loophole, and that no security system would guarantee that pistols were not removed from those places. Therefore, we consider that their continued possession cannot be allowed. We have always accepted that the implications for the sport are serious. We do so with regret, but openly and honestly.
The question was raised about the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland, and I shall make the position clear. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997—introduced by the previous Government—does not extend to Northern Ireland. Consequently, the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has had its own firearms legislation for a number of years. Lord Cullen's report was given separate consideration in Northern Ireland, in tandem with the review of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
The review of the legislation and the consideration of Lord Cullen's findings have now been completed, and separate recommendations on each have been passed to Ministers. They are currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and a response to Lord Cullen's report, including the question of a handgun ban, together with proposals for the reform of the firearms legislation generally, will be announced as soon as decisions have been taken.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked about the possible misuse of a handgun brought in for international sporting events within the Olympic and Commonwealth games. When discussing the exemption


that was made in September, I told my hon. Friends that we would have an opportunity to look at the lessons that needed to be learned in terms of controlling the admission of weapons into the country. However, we cannot isolate permission for Olympic or Commonwealth status. Who is to determine whether any individuals could rise to that skill and quality at some point in future, even if they have not reached that standard of competition now?
I remind the hon. Gentleman that foreign visitors need a British visitor's permit, and that, in addition to the Secretary of State's authority to get a permit, the visitor must have a British sponsor. So safeguards are built into the requirements.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) regretted the end of the sport of pistol shooting. His speech reflected the nature of this afternoon's debate. Basically, he did not accept the will of the House that there should be a ban on .22 handguns. To a great extent, that is what the debate has been about. We consider that the Bill is necessary and that the proposed exemption would have a serious and significant effect on the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North said that people were sick and tired of waiting for compensation. The problems of getting compensation through quickly and undertaking proper assessments of all the costs involved will be considerable, and we shall undertake that work as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend also raised the serious matter of an article in the press. I understand that the author is under police investigation as a result of the issues that he raised. My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that the law must be applied properly and without distinction.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) seemed to display some embarrassment and guilt. I remind him that there were twice as many Labour Members present as Conservatives when he intervened. At best, his was an unfortunate intervention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) spoke out for common sense and for the wishes of the House, as well as for her constituents, in favour of the ban on .22 weapons being carried into legislation without the proposed Lords amendment which the House should reject.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 160.

Division No. 78]
[7.8 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Berry, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Best Harold


Austin, John
Blears, Ms Hazel


Barron, Kevin
Blizzard, Bob


Battle, John
Borrow, David


Bayley, Hugh
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradshaw, Ben


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Brinton, Mrs Helen





Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Grocott, Bruce


(Dunfermline E)
Gunnell, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hain, Peter


Buck, Ms Karen
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Burgon, Colin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Byers, Stephen
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caborn, Richard
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Healey, John


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caplin, Ivor
Hepburn, Stephen


Casale, Roger
Heppell, John


Caton, Martin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cawsey, Ian
Hill, Keith


Chaytor, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hoon, Geoffrey


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Clwyd, Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coaker, Vernon
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hurst, Alan


Coleman, Iain
Hutton, John


Colman, Tony
Iddon, Dr Brian


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cooper, Yvette
Jamieson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jenkins, Brian


Corston, Ms Jean
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cousins, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cranston, Ross
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Crausby, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cummings, John
Jones, Ms Jennifer


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
(Wolverh'ton SW)


(Copeland)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Denham, John
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dismore, Andrew
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Doran, Frank
Kidney, David


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Drown, Ms Julia
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Maria (L pool Garston)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Edwards, Huw
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ennis, Jeff
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fearn, Ronnie
Laxton, Bob


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lepper, David


Fisher, Mark
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Livingstone, Ken


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David


Gardiner, Barry
McAllion, John


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godman, Norman A
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Goggins, Paul
McDonagh, Siobhain


Golding, Mrs Llin
Macdonald, Calum


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonnell, John






McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Ryan, Ms Joan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sawford, Phil


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Shaw, Jonathan


MacShane, Denis
Sheerman, Barry


McWalter, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Singh, Marsha


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Maxton, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Meale, Alan
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michael, Alun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Alan
Soley, Clive


Miller, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stunell, Andrew


Mudie, George
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Swinney, John


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Naysmith, Dr Doug
(Dewsbury)


Norris, Dan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Timms, Stephen


Palmer, Dr Nick
Todd, Mark


Pearson, Ian
Touhig, Don


Perham, Ms Linda
Trickett, Jon


Pickthall, Colin
Truswell, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pond, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Pope, Greg
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pound, Stephen
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Webb, Steve


Primarolo, Dawn
White, Brian


Prosser, Gwyn
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Quinn, Lawrie
(Swansea W)


Rammell, Bill
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Raynsford, Nick
Winnick, David


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wood, Mike


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Woolas, Phil


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wray, James


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Clive Betts and


Ruane, Chris
Mr. Kevin Hughes.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brady, Graham


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brake, Tom


Baldry, Tony
Breed, Colin


Barnes, Harry
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Bercow, John
Burnett, John





Burns, Simon
Luff, Peter


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chapman, Sir Sydney
MacKay, Andrew


(Chipping Barnet)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chidgey, David
Maclennan, Robert


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Mactaggart, Fiona


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Madel, Sir David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Collins, Tim
Maples, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Mates, Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cotter, Brian
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Curry, Rt Hon David
May, Mrs Theresa


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Öpik, Lembit


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paice, James


Duncan, Alan
Paterson, Owen


Evans, Nigel
Pickles, Eric


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Randall, John


Fallon, Michael
Rendel, David


Flight, Howard
Robathan, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fraser, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gale, Roger
Ruffley, David


Garnier, Edward
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shepherd, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Soames, Nicholas


Gorrie, Donald
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gray, James
Spicer, Sir Michael


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Steen, Anthony


Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary


Grogan, John
Swayne, Desmond


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Harvey, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Nick
Townend, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Tyler, Paul


Hoey, Kate
Tyrie, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wallace, James


Hunter, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Waterson, Nigel


Jenkin, Bernard
Wells, Bowen


Johnson Smith,
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Wilkinson, John


Key, Robert
Willis, Phil


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wilshire, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lansley, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Leigh, Edward
Woodward, Shaun


Letwin, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Loughton, Tim
Mr. James Cran.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not all the Division bells are working. I think that it is due to people not checking whether all the plugs have been put back in following building work during the summer recess. Could that be looked into, especially in relation to the Cloister Huts block? Some hon. Members could be substantially embarrassed by not knowing of the Division because—due to meetings—they do not have their television sets switched on. It is a matter of fact that not all the Division bells are working, and it is bad form.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to hear my response to his point of order?

Mr. Mackinlay: indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to him for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I am sure that it has been noted by the Serjeant at Arms. If there appears to be any sign of difficulty, I may be a little generous in the time that I allow for the Division.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. James Cran, Mr. John Greenway, Jane Kennedy, Mr. Alun Michael and Mr. Colin Pickthall; three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Alun Michael.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Education (Student Loans) Bill

Not amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 2

REGULATIONS TO PRESCRIBE CERTAIN TERMS OF STUDENT LOAN AGREEMENTS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 26, after `repayments,' insert—
'(ia) such terms relating to the interest to be borne by the loan,'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 to 5.

Dr. Howells: This is a small technical amendment to a Bill that is already purely technical. It would require that loan agreements specify how and when inflation is measured in setting the annual interest rate payable on the loans. It involves no change in our policy towards borrowers, or towards the debt sale itself. For the borrowers, the key point remains that they will repay no more in real terms than they borrowed. Interest rates will continue to be pegged to the rate of inflation.
The method used in calculating the annual interest rate already exists in the student loan regulations. The amendment will not change the method, the index used or the period over which inflation is measured. In line with our objectives for the rest of the Bill, we are simply transferring a provision in the loan regulations to loan agreements.
The need for the amendment is straightforward. If we do not introduce it, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will continue to have discretion over the period in which inflation is measured and over which the index is used to measure inflation. We have been advised that even that limited discretion could create potentially significant levels of uncertainty on the part of those buying the loans. That uncertainty would be priced into the bids and would add to the Government's costs. Removing the uncertainty will increase the competitiveness of the bids.
The change is entirely in line with the broad thrust of the Bill. Clause 2 already freezes the time and manner of repayment of the loans and the borrowers' right to deferment and cancellation. The amendment will freeze the method used to calculate the annual rate of interest. There will be no losers from the change. The Government will get more competitive bids, and borrowers and debt purchasers will know where they stand and that no adverse changes can be made at a later date. I urge the House to accept the amendment.

Mrs. Angela Browning: We have no objections.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
'(3A) For paragraph 1(4) and (5) there shall be substituted—
(4) Regulations made in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(b)(ia) above shall make such provision with respect to the rate of interest for the time being applicable to a public sector student loan as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to maintain the value in real terms of the outstanding amount of the loan.
(5) The provision required by sub-paragraph (4) above shall be framed by reference to such index of prices as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the regulations".'.
No. 3, in page 2, line 32, leave out '1(3)' and insert
`1(5) (as substituted by subsection (3A) above)'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 33, leave out '(3A)' and insert '(6)'.

No. 5, in page 3, line 1, leave out '1(3A)' and insert `1(6)'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I stress that the Bill does not deal with measures arising from the Dearing report or the Government's response to it. It relates solely to the student loan book and the debt that we intend to sell on to the private sector.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in the Budget on 2 July, we intend to raise £1.6 billion from the sale of part of the student loans debt in this financial year, to be followed by a further £1.5 billion in the next financial year. We have ensured that the changes introduced by the Bill will not adversely affect students. The key terms of the loans will be frozen to protect student borrowers, and we shall retain an independent assessor to deal with any complaints from students. Because the loans will become commercial agreements, they will be subject to both consumer and data protection legislation. Minimum collection standards will be laid down in the sale agreement. Borrowers with a disability are presently treated as a special case, and that will continue.
The Bill will protect students, and it also reaffirms the Government's firm commitment to sound public finance. The sale proceeds of more than £3 billion will be used to meet the Government's expenditure commitments, including those in higher education. The Bill will help to support our education plans based on raising standards, extending access and high quality provision. I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Browning: I shall not detain the House long, because, as was outlined on Second Reading and in Committee, the Opposition recognise that the Government are building on a measure introduced by the previous Government. Therefore, we have no objections to the measures that the Minister has outlined tonight. I noticed, however, that his opening remarks about the Dearing report were somewhat defensive. Since we first debated the matter, the Government's response to Dearing has become clear and students'

loans will be much larger as a result. We await tomorrow with interest, because we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Government's response to Dearing in more detail. I have nothing more to add, so I shall not detain the House unnecessarily.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I hate to break into this collusion between the Conservative party and the Labour Government but, as on Second Reading, the Bill has been allowed to slip through as if it does not matter. It does matter; far from helping students, the measure will be a great burden on future generations of students. I find it disgraceful that those of us who benefited from the grant system should be the very generation to impose massive debt problems on future generations of students.
It is important to point out that the co-operation between the Government and the official Opposition is not accepted by every opposition party. The Scottish National party's view has remained unchanged throughout the Bill's passage—we are opposed in principle to student loans, whether in government or, as the Government wish, private hands. We see it as anathema that current and future debt should be transferred into the hands of private profiteers.
The collusion between the two main parties will ensure that the Bill goes through this evening, as they have decided to get it through as quickly as possible. However, we must not forget that this is a Tory proposal from before the election, and the Bill is yet another example of the Labour Government doing the Tories' dirty work. I urge the Government to come clean on how they expect to redirect the resources that will arise from this latest sell-off.
On 10 July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the Government's reasons for proceeding with the privatisation of the Student Loans Company. He said:
Given the tightness of our plans generally and in particular the priority we wish to give to education programmes, the Government have decided to proceed with the sale."—[Official Report, 10 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 608.]
Does this mean that the, as-yet undefined, resources released by the sale will be reinvested in education? How much do the Government expect to "save", in their own words'? Will the money be redirected? If so, will it be reinvested in higher education?
I have a suggestion for how to spend £3 million to £5 million of the money. The House will be aware of the absurd position whereby Scottish students studying in Scotland will pay for only three years' tuition fees for their four-year courses, while English, Welsh and Northern Irish students studying in Scotland will pay for the full four years. The Scottish universities have suggested that the cost of removing this anomaly would be between £3 million and £5 million.
I ask the Minister to give a guarantee this evening that the money raised from the sale will be used to remedy that outrageous situation. I am happy to give way to the Minister. As he does not rise, I presume that he does not have an answer, which is very enlightening, in terms of the Government's attitude. Many folk who voted for them will be shocked, as they will have expected more from the incoming Government—particularly given the nature of the Government they replaced.


The Minister will be aware also of recommendation 82 in the Dearing report, which stated:
We recommend to the Government that the Inland Revenue should he used as the principal route for the collection of income contingent contributions from graduates in work, on behalf of the Student Loans Company.
To my mind, that is a clear sign that Sir Ron Dearing and his committee viewed their suggested reforms of student finance within a context of a state-owned and operated loans company. Are the Government considering using the good offices of the Inland Revenue to allow private companies to collect their debts? The House is entitled to hear the Government's view on that.
The Bill forms the basis of the Government's other student finance reforms. The privatisation of the Student Loans Company—with one or two companies eager to win control of student debt—is a necessary first step towards expanding the level of student debt burden. To ease the way towards ever-higher loans for tuition fees and maintenance, the Government are prepared to hand over student debt to companies whose sole motivation is profit; profit at the expense of student need and in the face of student hardship. Under the private profiteers, student debt will quadruple.
The average student will have no option but to take out those additional loans, but will do so with no real guarantee that their loan arrangements will not or cannot change in future. The Government have opened the door to future private exploitation of students and student debt, and that is the real failure of the measure. Student drop-out rates have increased by 12 per cent. under the state-owned Student Loans Company. I dread to think what that rate will be under the higher levels of private debt.
The Bill represents a new dogma shared by the Labour and Conservative parties, and forms part of a cosy consensus between the parties. It is the first blow of many in a year that will hit students, universities and colleges with outrageous and, to my mind, unjustifiable changes to the established pattern of student finance. The Scottish National party opposes the Bill in principle, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the message from students the length and breadth of the country. Some 6,000 students gathered in Edinburgh to make clear their objection to what the Government are doing. Many of them voted Labour in the hope that there would be a change in philosophy and policy. They have been quite shocked to find that the Labour Government are carrying out a Tory policy.
I will be interested to hear what the Liberal Democrats have to say, although I notice that they accentuate their opposition to tuition fees while quietly forgetting student loans which—tonight and on Second Reading—they support. The Scottish National party is opposed not only to the privatisation of student loans but to the whole concept. It hits directly at the traditional philosophy of Scottish education—a system that is open to all according to ability and irrespective of wealth or any other consideration. The Labour Government have attacked that traditional Scottish outlook. Totally against the Scottish tradition, they will remove from a swathe of the population the ability to go on to further and higher education. That is why 1 am against the Bill and the consensus among the Labour, Conservative and—I presume—Liberal Democrat parties.
To put it mildly, this would not have been the first measure that we would have introduced to try to solve the problems. In our view, it will only deepen the crisis facing our students. For that and many other reasons, we shall vote against the Bill. I invite the Liberal Democrats to join us, but—as on Second Reading—they will no doubt support the Government. I find it objectionable that the measure has been rushed through. Nobody consulted my party, and we were excluded from the normal channels, which agreed to rush it through. If we had been consulted, we would have informed the Government of our opposition. Tonight, we shall vote against the Bill on principle. Labour Members ought to be ashamed of this unacceptable measure. If they do not believe me, they should ask the students who are up in arms about what they are trying to do.

Mr. Phil Willis: I can assure the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh)—who is not party to Liberal Democrat deliberations—that it will become clear where we stand on this Bill as I speak for the next hour and a half.
I find it extremely difficult to listen to Government and Conservative Members speaking with one voice. I can understand why the Minister wishes to rush the Bill through. It is increasingly evident that it is not the Government who are pushing through the Bill, but the ghosts of the previous Administration. As the Tory party tears itself apart and gives the appearance of a party in terminal decay, it continues to have an iron grip on education spending in this House.
This sordid little Bill was conceived in Tory central office and born in Walworth road. It was sordid when the present Minister opposed the concept before the election, and it is sordid now. It is going through the House at the speed it is, not because Ministers believe in it, but because the proceeds are essential to the Chancellor's spending plans for this year and next.
Before the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) turned on the Liberal Democrats, he made a good point. No student will benefit as a result of the passing of the Bill, and not a single penny extra will go to our universities. It is important for hon. Members on the Government Benches—and for those on the packed Conservative Benches—to understand that. It does not matter that the proposals are no different from the sales of other public assets that were so derided by the Government when in opposition.
The student loan portfolio that is under the hammer today is a national asset. It is worth £3.1 billion and it is being offered to the City at a knockdown price. Can the Minister tell the House what is different about this sale to the City? What was so wrong about selling the National Grid or Railtrack at knockdown prices to the so-called City fat cats, but not this public asset? What is the difference? How does such a fire sale fit with the Government's proposals rightly to demand the test of best value on the awarding of local government contracts, for instance?


Can the Minister answer those two questions clearly, openly and without prevarication? Does he believe that the sale of those enormous public assets—on the terms you have agreed—represents the best value to taxpayers, yes or no? Secondly, if you say yes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry. My apologies to the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I am on my feet, the hon. Member must resume his seat. He has now corrected himself. He has already made a number of speeches in the House, and that is a point of procedure that he should have absorbed by now.

Mr. Willis: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and to the Minister. If he is prepared to say that this is best value to the taxpayers, will he be prepared to say what is the level of discount being sought by investors in order that the debt can be bought? I do not expect him to give me a precise figure, but the level of subsidy is directly relevant to the cost of selling this portfolio to the taxpayers.
The Minister said, in his former life as Opposition spokesman, that any subsidy above 25 per cent. would be excessive for the sale of the student loan portfolio, when the former Government wanted to attract private sector lenders into the student loan market. Perhaps he will say whether he expects the subsidy to be greater or less than 50 per cent. of the total value of the loan portfolio.
While Liberal Democrats understand the predicament that the Minister has been placed in by the Chancellor's commitment to the previous Government's tax and spend proposals for the next two years, he must understand the outrage felt on our Benches when we see what may be as much as a £1 billion subsidy paid to the private sector when our universities are experiencing the worst cash crisis in their history.
In effect, the £1 billion that the Minister is potentially giving away would stave off for the lifetime of this Parliament the requirement to introduce tuition fees. The sum of money saved would be far more than the total amount of money that will go to our universities because of imposing tuition fees in the lifetime of this Parliament. If the Minister disagrees with that assessment, can he say how much additional money will go to our universities in the lifetime of this Parliament from the imposition of tuition fees?
Another issue is the redefinition of lending proposed by the Secretary of State for the future treatment of student loans. If the Secretary of State is successful in persuading the Chancellor to change the redefinition of lending, we shall support him in his efforts. Could that principle not be applied to the existing loan portfolio? In that case, would the Minister consider not proceeding with the second tranche of the £1.5 billion sale next year?
Finally, I must ask the Minister whether at least one of the institutions that he expected to bid for the portfolio has already dropped out. Can he tell the House how many institutions are still actively bidding for the portfolio?
I must inform the hon. Member for Angus that, if a Division is called tonight, the Liberal Democrats will be opposing the Bill.

Mr. Byers: I shall answer those points, many of which will be more appropriately debated tomorrow during the Conservative Opposition day debate on Dearing and the Government's response to it.
To answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), we shall be publishing the names of those companies that are submitting for the portfolio. It would be inappropriate to give the information that he has requested tonight.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Why?

Mr. Byers: For the simple reason that we are in the process of running a strong competition to get the best deal for the taxpayer. It is the competition that will ensure that we get the best deal—a fact expressed by Opposition Members. I can give a guarantee that the details of those companies that are interested and are moving to the final stage of the process will be made public, as we made public the names of the 20 companies that entered the first phase of the competition.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough talk about the outrage on the Liberal Benches about this measure. It is a pretty recent outrage, because not one of them voted against it on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman referred to a debate we had when the previous Government introduced their attempt at a twin-track approach to student loans—a different approach from the one that we are proposing. It was in that context that we objected to the subsidy that was being offered. We have a strong competition in relation to the student loans book. We shall be receiving a number of substantial offers. It would be inappropriate this evening to reveal details of the discounts that we expect to be offered. Doing so would not get the best possible deal.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), the Prime Minister has committed the Government to extending access to further and higher education by an extra 500,000 places by the end of this Parliament—not rhetoric, but commitment to open up access. This measure will open up access, extend opportunities and ensure that we can continue to provide high-quality provision. On the basis of those three principles, I urge the House to vote for Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 24.

Division No. 79]
[7.47 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beard, Nigel


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F


Austin, John
Benton, Joe


Barnes, Harry
Bermingham, Gerald






Berry, Roger
Foulkes, George


Best, Harold
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gardiner, Barry


Blizzard, Bob
Gerrard, Neil


Borrow, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Godman, Norman A


Bradshaw, Ben
Goggins, Paul


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Buck, Ms Karen
Grocott, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Grogan, John


Burgon, Colin
Gunnell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hanson, David


Caplin, Ivor
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Casale, Roger
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Caton, Martin
Healey, John


Cawsey, Ian
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Chaytor, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hinchliffe, David


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hope, Phil


Clelland, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clwyd, Ann
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howells, Dr Kim


Coleman, Iain
Hoyle, Lindsay


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hurst, Alan


Cooper, Yvette
Hutton, John


Corbett, Robin
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cranston, Ross
Jamieson, David


Crausby, David
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cummings, John
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ms Jennifer


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
(Wolverhton SW)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dismore, Andrew
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Drew, David
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drown, Ms Julia
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Edwards, Huw
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Efford, Clive
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ennis, Jeff
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Lepper, David


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom





Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Linton, Martin
Ruane, Chris


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Salter, Martin


McAllion, John
Sawford, Phil


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Shaw, Jonathan


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McDonnell, John
Singh, Marsha


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Skinner, Dennis


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine


McLeish, Henry
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McWatter, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Martlew, Eric
Stinchcombe, Paul


Maxton, John
Stoate, Dr Howard


Meale, Alan
Stott, Roger


Merron, Gillian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Milburn, Alan
Stringer, Graham


Miller, Andrew
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moran, Ms Margaret
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
(Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mudie, George
Timms, Stephen


Mullin, Chris
Todd, Mark


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Trickett, Jon


Norris, Dan
Truswell, Paul


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Vaz, Keith


Pearson, Ian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Perham, Ms Linda
Walley, Ms Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Ward, Ms Claire


Pike, Peter L
Watts, David


Plaskitt, James
White, Brian


Pollard, Kerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pond, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Pound, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wills, Michael


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Wood, Mike


Purchase, Ken
Woolas, Phil


Quin, Ms Joyce
Worthington, Tony


Quinn, Lawrie
Wray, James


Rammell, Bill
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rapson, Syd
Wyatt Derek


Raynsford, Nick



Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cotter, Brian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dafis, Cynog


Brand, Dr Peter
Fearn, Ronnie


Breed, Colin
Gorrie, Donald


Burnett, John
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Chidgey, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)






Öpik, Lembit
Webb, Steve


Rendel, David
Welsh, Andrew


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Willis, Phil


Sanders, Adrian



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Swinney, John
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee) (sittings)),
That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 18th November at half past Ten o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103, (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of North Wales and the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

SUPREME COURT (OFFICES) BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Supreme Court (Offices) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Unadopted Roads

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Caroline Flint: I begin by thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the problems relating to unadopted roads, and by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to address the subject.
In raising this issue, I should like to draw attention to similar problems in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). As a Whip he does not have the opportunity to raise the matter in such a debate, but his constituency, too, is plagued by the existence of unadopted roads and the long-standing conflicts and upset that they create. I also thank my hon. Friend for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is now an Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and other colleagues who have raised this matter in the House. It is of some reassurance to me that this matter has vexed some of my colleagues over many years, just as it has troubled their constituents.
All too often, when roads are discussed in national forums or the media, the debate is dominated by the case for or against a new motorway or the bypassing of a town or village. Such debates invariably attract petitioners, professors and protesters who argue the merits of Government policy and trade statistics and traffic flows. The Minister will have become familiar with such well-organised lobbies in her first few months in post.
During my few months as the Member of Parliament for Don Valley, my mailbag and surgeries have made me aware of the fact that, for a large number of my constituents, roads are a major issue. They live in isolation, in quiet cul-de-sacs, traditional terraces and leafy lanes. This group is not organised under a national banner and has no PR officers or full-time lobbyists. This large group of protesters comprises the residents of unadopted roads—private roads that have never been taken into the responsibility of a local authority. They have their own story to tell, some going back generations.
They include a lady in Clifton terrace, Conisbrough, who told me that, as a result of increased traffic from a recently built crescent that surrounds her little road, there is now a drop of 1 ft from the edge of her property into the road. A funeral hearse could not enter the road, and the body had to be moved to another house to shorten the journey to the hearse.
There is the plight of residents in Ingleborough drive, Sprotbrough, who are threatening to close their road to parents who park their cars to drop off and collect their children from the school opposite. The residents of Ingleborough drive are furious that, although many other people use their road, worsening its condition, it is not publicly maintained. Ironically, while part of their road is adopted, most of it is not.
Then there is the example of the elderly lady in the adjoining Ingle grove who refuses to leave her home because she feels that the road is too dangerous and she might fall. Or there are the residents of Minney Moor lane in Conisbrough, a steep sloping track running off the main Doncaster road. The road is subject to flash flooding and, in winter, water pours off the main road, washing away


the top surface of the lane. The local archive reveals that the road was recognised as a private road as early as 1858. A letter from the borough engineer in 1959 appealed to residents to agree to improvements
since without the approval of all the frontagers concerned the work cannot proceed.
The present residents of Minney Moor lane must feel that they are stuck in a time warp when they read such letters. The sad truth is that the present law for dealing with these problems is inoperable. We often hear of the concerns of the ambulance and fire services about traffic-calming measures hindering their progress. There is nothing like a rutted, potholed, unadopted road to enforce traffic calming—although when I am told that an ambulance driver collecting a patient who has experienced an angina attack is concerned that the bumpy journey may be doing more harm than good, "calming" is the last word that comes to mind. In several cases, I am informed, doctors will not drive along such roads.
The problem is not isolated or parochial. In Doncaster borough alone there are about 120 unadopted roads, plus a large number of unadopted service roads to the rear of terraced properties. There are an estimated 40,000 unadopted roads in Britain. That means that there are a lot of people left wanting a road policy that works for them. Private roads are largely historical accidents. In this day and age, no new private roads should be created. Modern planning law ensures that a developer makes up the roads to a suitable standard for adoption. Thereafter the roads are maintained by the local authority in the normal way.
However, the cost of making up existing unadopted roads for adoption is the responsibility of the affected residents, and that cost is usually prohibitive. In Doncaster, no road has been made up for adoption since 1986. Under present law, the local authority has the power to carry out emergency work to obviate danger to traffic, but with the capital constraints, even my own authority has ceased to undertake emergency work on unadopted roads, so roads become ever more neglected and, in some cases, extremely dangerous.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Is it not the case that residents of unadopted roads see other roads throughout their local authority area in Doncaster and Bradford, and cannot understand why moneys cannot be spent on their streets? They do not understand the difficulties that local authorities have in how they spend their money.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is quite right. People would like their sense of inequality and injustice put right. I hope that the Minister will address that today.
Where does all this leave the residents of private roads? The money to pay for the initial work must be funded from the authority's capital funds if it is to deal with this issue, but competing priorities—especially for those for which the authority has a statutory responsibility—will always take precedent.
Doncaster is not alone, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) rightly points out. This problem is commonplace among local authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country.

Judy Mallaber: I agree that there is a need for this issue to be taken seriously. Although my

own constituency does not have as many as 120 unadopted roads, I, like many other hon. Members, have a number of constituents who are concerned about the issue. It is often difficult to know who is responsible for which road. In cases where we are not sure whether the borough council or the county council is responsible for a road or whether it is private, it turns out to be unadopted.
My hon. Friend is right to say that sometimes there is a choice. Should a road be incapable of use by an ambulance just because it might otherwise be used by motor cycles speeding up and down it? The idea that a road that is full of potholes can be used for traffic calming rather than being in a fit state to be used by emergency vehicles and for people's ordinary transport is difficult to cope with. I hope that the Minister will take my hon. Friend's arguments very seriously. These matters are of great concern to those who feel that they cannot afford to finance the work needed to enable vehicles to use their road.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.
Where does all this leave the residents of private roads? They can club together to have the road made up, but at about £200 per metre of road they often face a bill of £2,000 or more per household. For that reason, some residents object, and the plan invariably fails to proceed.
I am advised that houses on such roads cost less, which sometimes leads to a lower council tax. At one extreme the price differential leaves houses in the same council tax band as their adopted neighbours, while at the other extreme a modest saving on the purchase price 10 or 20 years ago is more than offset by a complete blight on the sale today, as prospective buyers make their first bumpy journey to view the house, never to return. The problem may be historical, but the misery seems eternal. Private roads are a private nightmare.
In this short debate, I ask the Minister to investigate the possible medium and long-term solutions to the problem. In time, the adoption of private roads may become one of our national transport objectives. We should seek imaginative ways of overcoming the financial obstacles to the making up of roads for adoption, such as using private finance to avoid the local authority having to make an initial capital outlay. Householders and other bodies with frontages on such streets are liable for making up private roads. The cost could perhaps be spread over 10 years as a charge on their council tax, thereby spreading the financial impact for present and future householders.
Private, unadopted roads should be regarded in the same way as outside toilets and asbestos in buildings: a legacy of the past and not something that we should live with in the future.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She said that we should find inventive solutions. Some of the privatised utilities use unadopted roads, such as water companies for the drains and telecommunication companies. We should try to find alternative ways for them to work in partnership with residents and the local authority to come up with creative solutions.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his further intervention. He is right. If householders, private utilities


that use the streets and the local authority worked together they could have fruitful discussions and find a solution for the future.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend have any experience of the hazards to women who have to walk along such streets? They face lighting and other problems, especially at night. In Norfolk, particularly in Norwich, refuse vehicles have problems getting down unadopted roads, and people do not get their refuse bins emptied. That creates terrible problems and makes it difficult to obtain contracts. Will my hon. Friend comment on the hazards to women and the problems of refuse collection in such areas?

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. As a student of the university of East Anglia for three years, and having lived in one of the outlying villages, I know full well the problems in Norwich and Norfolk. I am pleased that so many of my hon. Friends are present to support me in what is clearly a national debate of major importance. This is not a parochial issue: it affects the rural parts of our constituencies.
On the subject of women, I have seen for myself that one takes one's life in one's hands when walking down such streets. I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware of the problems facing householders when someone falls off his bicycle having gone into a crater in one of these roads. Householders are liable for any damages that that person claims against the people who live in the street.
I hope that the Minister will deal with these issues of public health and safety. As we enter the next century, people should have the right to live on roads that are made up and fit to walk and travel on. It is not beyond our ambition and vision to consign unadopted roads to the past.
As the new Member of Parliament for Don Valley, I thought that this problem may have been brought up only in my surgeries. I welcome the fact that, as this debate has shown, many hon. Members consider this to be an important issue. Hon. Members are inundated with representations from organised lobbies putting forward their case on transport policy. When one considers how many people live in those 120 roads in the Doncaster area, one realises how many are affected every day by the dire situations in their streets and on their doorsteps.

Judy Mallaber: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the people who have these concerns are isolated and are not from organised groups, precisely because unadopted roads are often in rural areas, are unlit and isolated and do not have many people living on them? They come to our surgeries to ask for help, but it is difficult for them to make their voices heard, and they do not get support from many other people. Is that also the position in my hon. Friend's constituency?

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Yes, that is position. People come to me, as the Member of Parliament, for my help in putting their case. I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have seen fit to participate in this debate and who, having done so, will be seen by their constituents as supporting them on this important issue.
On behalf of the many affected residents in Don Valley and the many other constituencies represented this evening, I thank the Minister for listening.

Mr. Fraser Kemp: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. This is an important issue, and the turnout of hon. Members shows the level of support. The problem affects tens of thousands of constituents throughout the country. In my constituency, every ward faces the serious problem of unadopted roads, which should be dealt with as part of the regeneration of the area. The problem is particularly acute in former mining constituencies, where British Coal assumed some responsibility in the past, but that is no longer the position.
This issue is about regeneration, improving the quality of life and giving people the dignity of a decent environment literally outside their front door. We can all talk about this problem in generalities, but I ask my hon. Friend to listen briefly to the case of a lady in my constituency, which I heard about at a public meeting. Mrs. Lily Earnshaw is 94 years young.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention. I remind him that interventions should be reasonably brief.

Mr. Kemp: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the case of Mrs. Lily Earnshaw, who, at 94, suffered an accident and the ambulance had serious difficulties getting along her street. That problem is shared by many in the constituency. In life she wants dignity, but she had a tragic experience when her husband died last year. The cortege could not leave the family home, and had to be organised from the hospital direct to the cemetery. A 95-year-old man could not have that dignity. I spoke to my 94-year-old constituent, and she pointed out that her nephew is Sir Terence Burns, who is a permanent secretary at the Treasury. Perhaps the Minister could bear that in mind when she makes financial representations.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend, and I thank Lily for helping us to drop such an important name into the debate.
I ask the Minister to give this matter due consideration, and wish her every success in her efforts to help improve the quality of transport and the life of road users as we approach the millennium.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I am responding to the debate in place of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), and I apologise for her absence. As a fellow Minister in the Department, I hope that hon. Members will accept that we have discussed this issue and I am responding on behalf of the Department.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for raising this important issue. I am also grateful for the interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for


Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp). This is a matter of great concern, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me. I am a new Member, and I should like to know whether it is in order for a Minister who was not here at the beginning of the debate, when someone from the Department involved should have been present, to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is customary for the Minister responsible for the Department to be present at the beginning of the debate and to respond at the end. I think that the Minister of State has already apologised to the House.

Ms Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Unadopted roads are known in the legislation as private streets, and I shall use that term in my speech. People in the country will probably recognise it more easily.
The Government's involvement in private streets is very limited, and, as a consequence, so is our information about them. The latest reliable figures for the extent of private streets date from as long ago as 1972. At that time, there were some 40,000 private streets—totalling about 4,500 miles—throughout England and Wales. In 1990, it was estimated that it would cost over £2,000 million to make up all private streets for adoption. My best guess, in the absence of firm information, is that the number of private streets is gradually declining in extent, and that the real costs of making them up are declining accordingly, but I suspect that today's figures are not very different from those that I have quoted.
My hon. Friend kindly gave me notice of some of the main points she wanted to make, and I shall do my best to answer them. First, however, it may be helpful if I set out the background in law. A private street is a highway that is not maintainable at public expense by a highway authority. As with many aspects of highways legislation, there is a long history behind the law relating to road maintenance and adoption. My hon. Friend may be relieved to learn that I do not propose to rehearse the whole story now.
Suffice it to say that 1835 marked something of a watershed, as it was the Highway Act of that year that introduced a provision whereby, for a street to become publicly maintainable, the "responsible public authority" must deliberately resolve to adopt it. Nowadays, that authority will normally be the local highway authority—for example, Doncaster borough council for most of my hon. Friend's constituency.
In most cases, the responsibility for maintaining a private street will fall to the owners of the properties adjoining it—or the frontagers, as they are known in the language that is used—who are also legally liable to meet the expenses incurred by the council, as "street works authority", in making up the street for adoption.
The current law governing the adoption of private streets is contained in the Highways Act 1980. Part XI of that Act contains what is known as the private street works code. Under the code, a street works authority can

resolve to make up a private street at any time, and the frontagers have no legal veto over that decision—although most authorities are reluctant to proceed in the face of substantial opposition. After the works, the street is usually adopted. The authority can apportion the expenses of making up the street among the frontagers by reference to the frontage lengths of individual properties, but it may also modify those apportionments if it has resolved in advance to take account of the degree of benefit, if any, that individual properties derive from the works. In addition, the authority may, if it sees fit, contribute to the cost of the schemes itself.
There are opportunities to challenge apportionments. Any property owners who believe that they have a case can put objections to the authority, on any of a number of grounds set out in the Act, and any of the objections that remain unresolved between them can be determined by a magistrates court. The authority may then demand payment. Once that demand is made, there is, as a final safeguard, a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State against the sum demanded. That strictly limited appellate jurisdiction is the extent of the Department's involvement in individual cases. The Secretary of State cannot, for example, direct an authority to make up or not make up any given private street.
That is not quite the end of the story. In the 1950s, to avoid the wholesale creation of new private street works liability—which had been such a feature of inter-war housing—the advance payments code was introduced. Under the code, a developer building a new property on land fronting a private street must deposit a sum equivalent to the authority's estimated private street works charge before building starts. That amount is set against the frontager's own eventual liability for street works charges, which is discharged to the extent of that sum plus accrued interest. The frontager then pays any shortfall, or receives a refund, as the case may be.
There is an alternative route to adoption. A developer can enter into an agreement with a highway authority for the adoption of a new estate road or other private street when it has been satisfactorily completed. In that case, the advance payments code does not apply, and the house buyer on a new estate has the assurance that there will be no street works charges to be paid later on. Those adoption agreements, as they are known, offer such obvious advantages to both the developer and the authority that that approach is often the preferred one.
That—as I am sure you will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—concludes my description of the ways in which street adoption can be achieved, and the protective provisions that exist to protect individual householders involved from unreasonable demands.
I shall now outline the discretion that local authorities have to contribute from their own resources. Local authorities have the power to moderate street works charges in four ways. First, as I have already said, they may take account of the degree of benefit received. They would typically use that power in order to reduce the charge payable by a householder with a long flank frontage who may receive little or no benefit from the works. They may make up the difference themselves, rather than reapportioning the cost among other frontagers. Secondly, they may allow payments by instalments. Thirdly, in cases of hardship, the authority can waive reimbursement of the principal sum due until the property is sold, and in the meantime recover from the


householder the interest on the outstanding charge only. Finally, local authorities have a general discretion to bear part or all of the costs of a scheme themselves.
In that context, it is worth noting that local authorities have the power to use a proportion of their capital receipts from the sale of assets—generally 25 per cent. in the case of council houses, and 50 per cent. in the case of most other receipts—on capital expenditure of any kind in any year. It is, of course, for authorities themselves to determine how those usable capital receipts are spent, in the light of local priorities and circumstances. I simply point out that the power exists.
Having said that local authorities have the power to make payments, I must add that there is an issue about whether it is right for them to do so. There is no doubt that many who live on private streets see the liability to pay private street works charges as unfair. That is particularly true of people whose houses have long frontages that make them liable to correspondingly high charges. While I sympathise with those to whom these charges represent some hardship, we should remember that the liability for street works appears in the local land charges register, and should therefore be taken into account in the purchase price of the house.
Many householders have paid for their own streets to be made up and may feel aggrieved by a decision to make the service free to future users, especially in residential roads where the benefits will be enjoyed almost entirely by the householders and those who visit them, rather than by the public at large.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley mentioned the blighting effect of a street not being made up. She seemed to be saying that making up streets would produce an increase in house prices greater than the cost of the work. That is an additional argument for house owners, rather than local authorities, to bear the cost.
My hon. Friend spoke about the difficulties facing a council that wishes to make up a private street, and she mentioned in particular the need for consent, the problem of transitional finance, and the problem for some householders of meeting the costs. That may express itself in opposition to the making up.
On the need for consent, I hope that I have made it clear that there is no legal requirement for unanimity or, indeed, any consent by the frontagers, although a sensible council will, of course, take their views into account.
On transitional finance, my hon. Friend suggested the use of the private finance initiative. I fear that it is unlikely that PFI would be appropriate for this type of relatively small-scale transaction, although I have no objection to councils exploring it. I hope that I have explained the measures that a council may adopt in cases of hardship. Those measures may include payment by instalments.
As I have said, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling the House to consider this issue. There is enough flexibility in the existing system to allow sensible decisions to be taken, and I hope that what I have said will go a good way towards meeting my hon. Friend's concerns.

Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister clearly read her words verbatim without rehearsal or prior knowledge. May we be assured that the discourtesy of switching briefs at the last minute to avoid embarrassment does not occur again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point of order in part. The way in which Ministers respond to debates is entirely a matter for them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Nine o'clock.